Informationoverlord

Apple want me to spend around £400 to buy a giant 16GB iPod Touch. Hmmm… Yes, the iPad is nice a shiny, just like all Apple’s stuff, but what is it for exactly? When and where would I use it?

Q: Would I take it out and about with me instead of a netbook/laptop?

A: No.

Q: Would I buy it to read books?

A: No. At £400 that’s still an expensive eBook reader with a backlit screen.
Q: Is it a game changer?

A: No. The iPod was, the iPhone was, this is just a nice piece of kit.

Q: Do I want one?

A: Of course.

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.

2330. As to alleged misrepresentations as to resources made prior to the selection of EDS and the Letter of Intent: the Greater Resources Representation was not made by EDS and Sky have not established that EDS made a misrepresentation in relation to the Lesser Resources Representation or the Ready to Start Representation. Accordingly, EDS are not liable to Sky for misrepresentation as to resources.

2336. In relation to the allegations of misrepresentations prior to the Letter of Agreement, the statements made by EDS did amount to a representation that they had developed an achievable plan, which had been the product of proper analysis and re-planning.

The always insightful Eric Goldman comments on jurisdiction in a case between Daniel Miller, the creator of online flash game ‘Boomshine’ and Facebook. Miller – a Facebook user – has gone after Facebook - in addition to Yao Wei Yeo who he accuses of producing a game / Facebook app ChainRxn, that violates his “look and feel” copyright in Boomshine - for its role in providing access to the app.

Miller wanted the case heard in Georgia, the Court instead agreed to Facebook’s request that it be heard in California, as asserted under the terms and conditions of the Facebook user agreement.
As Goldman points out, what makes this interesting is that the Judge decided that Miller’s complaint about another app – which is nothing to do with his use of the service - is covered by Facebook’s general forum selection clause, which purports to govern “any dispute about or involving the Web site and/or the Service.” As Goldman says, “Read literally, this court seems to be saying that all 350M Facebook users are required to sue Facebook in Facebook’s home court for any claim they may have that relates to Facebook.com.”

Ofcom is consulting on a request by the BBC to amend to its digital multiplex licence (Multiplex B), to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to digital receivers (digi-boxes) that implement content management technology.

The BBC first punted this idea back in September 2009 and was sent packing by Ofcom who told it – following a lot on negative response from a first consultation – that it needed more information about why this would be good for consumers if it were to stand any chance of approval.

It seems to have worked.

Ofcom states that it is now minded to approve the request finding that content management is a justified objective and that the ability to restrict the availability of EPG data to receivers which implement content management, represents the most appropriate means for securing the benefits of a wider range of HD content for citizens and consumers. The proposals also call licence holders for Multiplexes C and D, which carry a similar requirement to Multiplex B to provide EPG data in an open format, be also granted a similar licence amendment to allow EPG data to be broadcast in a closed format.

Before allowing the BBC to broadcast EPG data in a closed format under a licence amendment, Ofcom would require that the BBC implements: commitments to establishing an “appeals” process whereby viewers who believe their lawful usage is being impinged by the BBC’s use of content management can raise their concerns to the BBC; to work with the other public service broadcasters to create a ‘user friendly’ consumer guide to content management; to facilitate discussions between broadcasters, manufacturers, relevant industry bodies and consumer groups to develop and implement a good practice framework for the use of content management on the HD Freeview platform; and to give an undertaking that it will respect current usage protections under copyright law and any future extension of these protections, such as those recommended by the Gower’s Review of Intellectual Property – such as format shifting.

So what would this mean in practice?

Under the BBC’s proposals, broadcasters would be allowed to allocate one of three content management states to individual HD programmes:

Unrestricted copy: the digital receiver output is unencrypted and unrestricted copies of HD content can be made onto any digital device. There are no restrictions imposed on internet distribution.

Multiple copy: the digital receiver output is encrypted and unrestricted copies of the content can be made onto digital devices that are compatible with the copy management technology. Internet distribution is not permitted.

Managed copy: the digital receiver output is encrypted and only one copy of the content can be made onto a DVR and one external digital device which is compatible with the copy management technology. Internet distribution is not permitted

In all three content management states:

Ofcom’s current intention is also to make a requirement of the BBC being able to broadcast EPG data in a closed format under a licence amendment, that the free to air HD broadcasters on Multiplex B must only apply the minimum level of content management needed to secure content from rights holders.

This sounds good , but if the minimum level of content management that all broadcaster demand is ‘Managed Copy’ then that will be the minimum level of content management needed to secure content from rights holders – so, this is a fairly worthless statement.

Ofcom is clear that that content management cannot be applied to Standard Definition (SD) content, or HD content that has been converted down to SD, and that no restrictions are placed on the recording of HD content onto an DVR which is integrated with a receiver.

For digi-box/receiver manufactures what this means it that they would have to sign licensing deals with the BBC to gain access to Huffman Code look-up tables, to be able to ’see’ the HD content. This will be licensed on a royalty-free basis and on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRND) terms to any party who undertakes to comply with the content management standards agreed and specified by the Digital TV Group (DTG), and the BBC will be only be able to require content management technologies in receivers that form part of the DTG specification

Why the whole idea should be binned.

It’s all about piracy, right? Just as it was when DRM was stuck on CDs - and that worked SO well. Rights holders don’t want their HD content appearing online (unless they put it there of course) hence why ‘Internet distribution is not permitted.’ In the only option above that rights holder would choose. Very nice. The reality is that if someone want to put your content online on a bit-torrent site they will, and it only takes one person to do it. What this proposal does is wastes time and money for no net benefit to the consumer – nor in reality the rights holder – all for the sake of what exactly?

Also, when you look at, for example the Multiple Copy and Managed Copy options what is are “digital devices that are compatible with the copy management technology” ? Is a blank DVD covered by this? Is an iPod? Or are we, as I suspect, just going to do things that piss off the consumer?

The Rights Holders may say, look most people just want to record something and maybe watch in on a mobile digital device or burn a copy to disc – we’re not going to stop them doing that (although I’m sure they want to stop you doing either of these things), but if they say this – which could fit the description of ‘Managed Copy’ – the questions would be, well, they can already do that now. If that’s what the average person is going to do, then you don’t need any of this DRM in place at all. If instead you’re after the few who will burn off and sell or upload to the internet and share, then they’re going to do that whether or not your output is encrypted or not.

DRM applied in this way is, as it has been every time it has been applied, is a means of saying ‘we are going to treat you all like you’re potential criminals. …because that’s how we like to think of your our valued customers.’ This proposal is merely the latest example of it.

Sadly it is now a done deal. Once Ofcom is ‘minded’ it means it has ‘decided’.

Why I love buying Concert tickets and why you should always look on more than one site.

Today I was looking at an upcoming gig and on Ticketmaster the price for 2 tickets was quoted as £16.50 each (inc booking fee etc). On See Tickets the same tickets were £15.75 each (in booking fee) but with an additional charge of £2.25 as a transaction fee for any order.

So, a total of £33 on Ticketmaster and £33.75 on See Tickets.

So, I bought the tickets from Ticketmaster, right?

WRONG.

What I had not yet mentioned was the £5.25 additional charge by Ticketmaster for sending the tickets to you by secure mail – their only delivery option: no box office pick up or eTicket or unsecure mail option. No postage charge on See Tickets, so the actual totals for the two tickets on both sites are:

Ticketmaster: £38.25
See Tickets: £33.75

As an aside, the face value of the tickets is £13 each, which means Ticketmaster is just shy of charging you for a third ticket to buy just two.

Anyone remember the days when you could buy at the box office and pay the price it actually says on the ticket? …

The High Court has dismissed BSkyB’s appeal against rulings by the Competition Commission (CC) and the Secretary of State, as upheld by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), that directed BskyB to decrease its 17.9% shareholding in ITV to below 7.5%. The court did disagree with the CAT’s conclusion as to media plurality, reinstates the CC conclusion on that point, and suggests now that possible difficulties in applying section 58(2C) and section 58A(5) of the Enterprise Act 2002 have been identified, that the government should look to amend the legislation accordingly.

The Court identified that the key issue on media plurality turns on the correct view of the interaction between section 58(2C) and section 58A(5) of the Enterprise Act 2002 , and in particular on the meaning of the phrase, not defined in the Act, “sufficient plurality of persons with control of … media enterprises” in section 58(2C)(a).

58A(5)
(5) For the purposes of section 58, where two or more media enterprises—
(a) would fall to be treated as under common ownership or common control for the purposes of section 26, or
(b) are otherwise in the same ownership or under the same control,
they shall be treated (subject to subsection (4)) as all under the control of only one person.
58(2C)

(2C) The following are specified in this section—
(a) the need, in relation to every different audience in the United Kingdom or in a particular area or locality of the United Kingdom, for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving that audience;
(b) the need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of broadcasting which (taken as a whole) is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; and
(c) the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of the standards objectives set out in section 319 of the Communications Act 2003.

It concluded:

“[I]t seems to us that the Commission was correct to hold that, whereas in reckoning the number of controllers of media enterprises for the purposes of section 58(2C)(a) only one controller is to be counted in respect of both or all of the relevant enterprises (here Sky and ITV), nevertheless, when it comes to assessing the plurality of the aggregate number of relevant controllers and to considering the sufficiency of that plurality, the Commission may, and should, take into account the actual extent of the control exercised and exercisable over a relevant enterprise by another, whether it is a case of deemed control resulting from material influence under section 26 or rather one of actual common ownership or control. It does not seem right to us to read the artificial effect of section 58A(5), in a case within paragraph (a), as extending farther than is necessary and clearly required by that provision. This reading of the subsection puts it in the same category as section 58A(4), being ancillary to the provisions of section 58. It applies to the calculation of the number of controllers, both as regards the merged or merging enterprises and as regards any others serving the relevant audience. On the other hand, it does not allow the provision to have an overriding effect, excluding a consideration of the limited extent (if it be the case) of any control actually exercised or exercisable by a controlling enterprise over another enterprise, in the course of the qualitative assessment which is required on an investigation by the Commission in relation to the particular public interest consideration identified in section 58(2C)(a).
In relation to the concern expressed by the Tribunal about the possibility of an increase in the level of control or influence without a new RMS arising, so that the merger control provisions would not apply (referred to at paragraph [103] above), on the one hand that possibility does not appear to exist in the present case because of the application to Sky of the 20/20 rule (see paragraph [44] above) and on the other hand, in a case in which that possibility does or might exist, the Commission would be entitled to take it into account when considering the sufficiency of the plurality of the controllers as matters stand following the RMS.
It seems to us unsatisfactory that the terms of the Act should have been open to the conflicting interpretations placed on it by the Commission and the Tribunal. If it were thought that to limit the deeming effect to one of number alone does not allow for sufficient protection of the sensitive interest of media plurality, it should not be difficult to amend the legislation accordingly, now that possible difficulties in applying the current legislation have been identified. ”

The court notes that whilst this does not affect the outcome of the present case, it may be of relevance in future. The Court refused BskyB permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on one point as regards the rejection of a possible alternative remedy, but noted that ity remains open to BskyB to apply to the Supreme Court itself for such permission to appeal.

“most knowledge managers lost sight of the fact that the real value is in creating new knowledge, rather than simply “managing” existing knowledge.”

Interesting article on the Harvard Business Review blog by John Hagel III and John Seely Brown (Deloitte) entitled “A Better Way to Manage Knowledge”

They explore the idea of ‘creation spaces’ (and looked at how people work together and pool knowledge in World of Warcraft, for example) and why these and not traditional KM systems are the best way to leverage knowledge.

Their view is summed up by the following quote: “Knowledge management systems desperately try to persuade participants to invest time and effort to contribute existing knowledge with the vague and long-term promise that they themselves might eventually derive value from the contributions of others. In contrast, creation spaces focus on providing immediate value to participants in terms of helping them tackle difficult performance challenges while at the same time reducing the effort required to capture and disseminate the knowledge created.”

An interesting idea, and one which I feel has a lot of merit; however it also seems to be throwing up an either / or option that shouldn’t exist. Surely the true value is created by having both creation spaces and also a method for capturing the output of those spaces as well as any ‘existing knowledge’. I sound like a broken record on this but as I have said many time before, in relation to Law Firms, knowledge is what we sell – we don’t sell law. A case in point , we have examples of agreements/licences that have long been out of date in relation to UK law, but suddenly become gold dust when dealing with emerging market companies starting to go through similar processes that the UK did 20 years ago etc – I’m not convinced a creation space would capture this, whereas the boring old KM system did and has.

Anyway, the article is well worth a read.

I see in the Guardian that The German Federation of Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) and Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ) have become the latest groups to jump on the ‘Google are stealing our content’ bandwagon and have complained to the Federal Cartel Office about Google including news article “snippets” in its search results without payment to the news sites in question.

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder where these people were when they had that meeting about ‘what the web is and what the internet is?’

If you don’t want search engines searching and indexing you stuff, put a bloody robots.txt file on your site and add the relevant domains to it – problem solved. And, if you don’t want search engines searching your content, then what the fuck are you on the internet for in the first place?

I have to say my first question in any case like this would be – so, do you have a robots.txt file in place to stop your content being ’stolen’ without your permission and you entering into a commercial agreement? If the answer is YES, then I take the case forward. If the answer is NO, I tell you to fuck off and to stop wasting my time.

So, what is it they object to exactly you ask? Well things like this –

German News Groups, Microsoft Unit File Anti-Trust Complaints Against Google
paidContent.org - ?16 hours ago?
—The Federation of Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) and Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ) have complained about that ‘ol chestnut - Google’s use of …

It is also curious how it always seems to be Google, not Microsoft or Yahoo that is the problem. Do Microsoft and Yahoo already pay German Federation of Newspaper Publisher and Association of German Magazine Publishers to include their members’ snippets in their search results/ news search results? I suspect not. Also, I believe I’m right in saying that Yahoo’s news service is by far the most popular and most used on the web, not Google’s, although this may be more about adwords revenue.

I fully appreciate the difficulties that the publishing industry is going through – my girlfriend was a casualty of those problems last year and more friends of hers have lost their jobs in the past few weeks – but these endless attempts by the industry to blame everybody else for their failings is getting tiresome. Without the likes of Google, the only people who’d be reading their content are those current readers who have been abandoning their traditional print versions, and how long do you think they’ll keep their business afloat? Here, let me hand you the nails for your own coffins.

An interesting case is being heard by the US Federal Appeal Court today. Miller v. Skumanick looks the address the issue of whether child porn charges can be brought against teenagers who send nude or semi-nude photos to each other ( ’sexting’ ). The case stems from action by ex Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr against a group of teens, where he threatened to charge them with child porn offenses and place them on the sex offender register if they refused to take a class he had designed to educate youths about the dangers of sexting. Three parents refused to submit their children to the class and argued that Skumanick had violated their First Amendment rights with his threat of a child porn prosecution.

The Court has already issued a temporary restraining order in the case that will be watched closely across the US. The Court is essentially being asked to decide whether or not sexting images can be deemed child porn or not under Pennsylvania law – and it seems unlikely they will be - the images in this case included a snap of a girl in her bikini, one of two girls posing in opaque white bras, and a girl wrapped in aN opaque white towel with her breasts showing.

It obviously seems stupid and counterproductive to be charging 13 year old girls (and boys) with child porn offences for sending nude and semi-nude photos to one another, however if (and when) these pics make it onto the wider internet and are viewed and or downloaded by others, then things invariably start to change. Although here too most child porn laws exist primarily to protect the ‘victims’ of the crime (although several countries have also expanded their laws to catch fake/virtual child porn as well) and if we accept that those sexting images of themselves are not victims, where does that leave the law in that regard?

I should say that I’m not, for one minute. suggesting that we get rid of our child porn laws, but new technology does throw up issues that demand serious debate regarding just how we interpret them. Is this a case of CHILD PORN: ‘I know it when I see it’? Can the image be classed as not being child porn when swapped between teenagers but then become child porn when viewed by third parties on the wider web?

A case worth following.