The Good NET Guide

Posts Tagged ‘daily’

Apparently it’s illegal in Canada to copy music from a CD you bought to an iPod (or whatever). It’s simply not allowed, even if you’re not breaking any DRM in the process.

Here is the original post:
The $75 iPod levy that will solve all of Canada’s problems

AT&T’s ZERO draw charger will turn itself off when it isn’t actively charging. That is all.

Read more from the original source:
AT&T announces zero draw anti-vampire charger

A young man rang Charter Cable to cancel his cable TV connection and maintain his Internet connection. Why? Because cable TV is an anathema to this generation’s vision of media consumption and/or it sucks.

Original post: 
Charter Communications: All your streams are belong to us

Having now written two books about my failures in work, life and love, I think I’m qualified to say that the only difference between a memoirist and a prostitute is timing.

A prostitute sells sex for money – that money being payable either immediately before or immediately after the act. A memoirist also receives money for having sex – but our payment comes via a publisher, months or years later, once we’ve recounted the amusing or titillating details in print. In the final analysis, really, we’re all whores.

And yet, in terms of public perception, the distinction of payment and timing is vital. Actual prostitutes are – generally speaking – looked down on by society: labels like ‘whore’ and ‘hooker’ being, almost without exception, used pejoratively. Memoirists, on the other hand, tend to be reasonably well regarded, not least by themselves. For that reason, accidentally calling a hooker a memoirist is unlikely to cause offense, but accidentally call a memoirist a hooker and… hoo boy…

This time last week, my friend Zoe Margolis – who writes as the Girl With A One Track Mind – was asked by the UK’s Independent on Sunday (IoS) newspaper to write a column about how she went from being an anonymous sex blogger to a widely-recognised advice columnist and memoirist. Zoe, I should emphasise, does not have sex for money. I know this for a fact: we shared a house at SXSW a couple of years ago and she stubbornly refused to sleep with me, despite the fact that I paid for all of our groceries at Whole Foods.

And yet, thanks to an astonishing but – I hope – innocent piece of lazy subediting, when the IoS published her column they did so under the unambiguously libellous headline “I was a hooker who became an agony aunt“.

Hoo boy.

The IoS reaslised its mistake (for want of a better word for “misquoting one of our writers as calling herself a whore”) within an hour of the paper going to press and quickly changed the headline in print and online. But of course the damage was already done. Although, according to the paper, only a couple of thousand hard copies had been dispatched to news stands, the web version had already been syndicated to dozens of other sites – including Yahoo! – and such far-flung newspaper websites as the Times of India. Worse still, it took several more hours – and increasingly vocal complaints by Zoe – before the IoS changed the story’s URL which still contained the full wording of the original headline.

An embarrassing screw up for the Independent – but one that other papers can learn from, right?

Not so much.

A few days later, another UK paper – The Daily Mail – ran a story headlined “I posed as a girl of 14 on Facebook. What followed will sicken you …” The story was indeed sickening; written by a former police detective, it revealed how after signing up to Facebook as a young girl, he was immediately contacted by middle-aged men looking for sex. There was just one problem with the story: it wasn’t true.

For a start the story was ghost-written by a Mail journalist, loosely based on a phone interview with the detective. More importantly, the detective had made clear – repeatedly – that the social network in question wasn’t Facebook. In fact he’d actually praised Facebook for having put in place measures to protect young users against ‘grooming’ by adults. Unfortunately, the Mail seems to have a beef with Facebook – they previously accused the site of causing cancer – and so decided to name and shame it both in the article, and in the headline and – yup – in the URL. As with Zoe’s story, the headline was changed after a few hours (having already been widely syndicated) but the libellous URL remained uncorrected for more than a day.

In both cases, the result was the same – the Independent and the Mail each issued apologies and corrections in the next day’s paper and online but both Zoe and Facebook say they intend to take legal action both for the initial error but also for the further harm done by the time the papers took to correct their libellous URLs.

We’ll have to wait and see what comes of the proposed lawsuits, but in the meantime both cases illustrate a huge problem with the blurring of the line between old and new media. In the old days, editors understood how their papers worked. If a libellous story was printed, they would stop the presses (if it wasn’t already too late) and they would issue an apology the next day. Most readers would see the apology and all would be well. Yes, there might still be a libel action, but at least the publication could show that they’d halted the presses and issued the apology, thus mitigating some of the damage done.

Today, that’s no longer the case. The simple fact is that many editors have absolutely no idea how their papers work any more. According to the Guardian, when Charles Garside, assistant editor of the Daily Mail, was asked about the fact that the libellous URL was unchanged for more than 24 hours, he described it as “a technical matter”, adding: “We are removing elements of that”.

“A technical matter” – which of course is code for “I have absolutely no idea how the Internet works. We have geeks to do that kind of thing, and they were at home – probably masturbating or watching Battlestar Galactica – or both – when the story went up”

With those three words – “a technical matter” – Garside lays bare the problem newspapers face in moving online. Editors understand stories and they understand headlines, but today they also need to understand URLs and automatic syndication and all of the other “technical matters” that are just as much a part of the modern newspaper as standfirsts and pullquotes. This is a lesson I learned the hard way back in 2005 when I was hit with an enormous libel claim (and the possibility of imprisonment for contempt of court) when the publication I edited linked to a libellous story (published in France) about a certain English Premiership football player. Although we were careful not to name the player in our story, we were still held responsible for identifying him because the URL we published contained his surname. The fact that we’d used our in-house link-shortener to mask the true URL was no defence as the shortener was hosted on our own server and resolved to the correct address before the reader left our site. Since that day, I’ve understood that a URL can get you in just as much legal hot water as an ill-judged headline.

Unfortunately that seems to be a lesson that editors at certain major national newspapers are yet to learn. If I were the owner of the Independent, or the Mail, or any other newspaper I’d insist that my editors spend a few hours of their time learning how their papers work in the digital age. That means understanding not just how to stop presses and issue apologies but also how to get under the hood and change URLs; how automatic syndication works and how to ensure any subsequent apology is amended to every online version, and not just the one hosted on their main site.

Finally, the way that apologies and clarifications are published needs to be seriously re-thought. Publishing a correction in the next day’s paper, or as a separate item on the publication’s website, is a ridiculous anachronism. People no longer read the same paper every day: the fact that they stumbled across a story in the Independent or the Daily Mail once through Google News doesn’t mean they’ll ever read a story in that paper again. It certainly doesn’t mean they’ll see a correction published 24 hours later.

Whereas once a libel court could be satisfied that the publication of a printed apology would mitigate libel damages, that’s unlikely to hold much weight in any legal action concerning the stories about Zoe Margolis or Facebook. Both Zoe and Facebook made their reputation online and it’s online rather than in print that they have the most to lose.

As a Facebook spokesperson told the Guardian, a traditional correction can’t undo the ‘brand damage that has been done’. Perhaps, then, the Mail and the Independent should take a lesson in damage control from Zoe. Moments after the Independent published their apology, she tweeted out a link to it and asked her followers to ‘please retweet’. Many (including me) did, and still others republished it on their blogs. Not only did that spread the word that Zoe isn’t – and has never been – a hooker, but it also helped ensure that most of the Google results for “Zoe Margolis +hooker” point to the correction and not to the original libel.

Had the editors at the Mail and the Independent been quicker to update their libellous URLs, and had they used Twitter and other social networks to push out their apologies then perhaps they could have avoided what will quite possibly be some very costly legal action.

But then again that would require them to understand the first thing about the Internet and other “technical matters”. And if they’ve proved anything recently, it’s that they really – really – don’t.

Short version: An excellent camcorder with few faults except one big, fat, glaring one: it only records in 1080i. What year is this again?

Originally posted here: 
Review: JVC GZ-HM340 compact HD camcorder

This seems a bit odd, but here’s another take on alternative power; Dutch designer Joris Laarman came up with a concept for a desktop lamp that glows from bio-luminescent hamster ovaries. Seriously, I’m not making this stuff up

Read more: 
Desktop lamp powered by hamster cells

There’s a myth out there that technology will ruin soccer, what Pelé (and others) once called “the beautiful game.” Let me ask you something: is this Cristiano Ronaldo free kick any less beautiful because he’s wearing the latest Nike boots?

See the original post: 
Why are we so afraid of technology ‘ruining’ soccer? It’s not like technology hasn’t been all over the sport since its inception.

U.K. startup Skimlinks is hoping to revolutionize the affiliate model by turning normal product links into affiliate links. The startup gives publishers access to affiliate programs of thousands of merchants across a number of affiliate networks. Each time a user clicks through and makes a purchase, the website earns a commission from the retailer. With Skimlinks, a publisher can set which links should be affiliate ones or not. The publishers makes money from content via affiliate fees and Skimlinks takes a 25% cut of the commissions. Today, the startup is launching a nifty discovery tool for publishers to search for affiliate links by keyword.

The desktop tool, called a Skimkit, is powered by Adobe AIR and is essentially a live searchable database of millions of products from Skimlinks merchants. The tool lets publishers research, find and link to products they are writing about, with immediate access to deeplinks and image URLs.

So, If a website publisher is searching for a link for red shoes, the user can search for red shoes on the Skimbit. The startup will produce results from retailers who have affiliate programs for links. SkimKit also features a service that creates shortened, monetized links for use in Twitter and email newsletters. SkimKit is available for free to Skimlinks publishers.

Skimlinks, which was born from Skimbit, is already being uses as a monetization service on more than a half million sites worldwide and has raised a total of $2.5 million in funding. Publishers using the affiliate service include Elle.com, The Daily Mirror, and a number of fashion blogs and sites.

When Hulu first launched, it was supposed to be the media industry’s answer to YouTube: a place where shows and movies from TV would find an audience online and make advertising money directly for the media companies backing it instead of sharing any of that video ad money with YouTube. All that professional quality video from NBC, Fox, and Comedy Central brought in a huge audience, helping Hulu grow into the second largest video site online with more than 1 billion video views a month.

Well, that formula is great for Hulu, but it isn’t working for one of its biggest media partners. Yesterday, Viacom decided to pull two of the top shows from Hulu: Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. Both were regularly among the most popular shows on Hulu, which is a joint venture between NBC Universal and News Corp. When Hulu first convinced Viacom to allow it to distribute Colbert and The Daily Show back in June, 2008, it was seen as a major milestone for the young video service.

Just like on TV, the majority of video viewership on the Web is driven by hits. The Comedy Central shows were big hits for Hulu, as evidenced by Hulu’s blog post practically begging Viacom not to leave. But Viacom decided that Hulu needed Colbert and Jon Stewart more than they needed Hulu. Clips from the shows will still be availble for free online on TheDailyShow.com and ColbertNation, where Viacom controls and sells all the video ad inventory through its own sales force.

The Comedy Central shows are not going behind some sort of Murdochian paywall. They are still embeddable and shareable across the Web, but with Comedy Central’s garish video player and its ads. When you have hit shows, people will find them even if they are not on Hulu or YouTube. Viacom made the calculation that it can make more money by recentralizing distribution of its hit shows on its own sites than allowing them to be streamed on Hulu. Why should they split video ad revenues with Hulu when they can have it all themselves. As Andrew Barron in an insightful post

In other words, whatever they get for ad sales over there at Hulu is going to be split up between Hulu and Comedy Central. Why should Comedy Central cut in Hulu on their ad money? They can sell their own ads for a premium and make 100% of the share if they do it themselves. Some shows may be glad to give Hulu 50% or even more of the rev share because Hulu brings an audience they dont already have. But eventually, for any top show, the leverage tide will turn and the middle person will be the first to go.

Hulu is good for shows that can’t attract a big enough audience to their own sites, but there is too much money left on the table by splitting ad revenues for the hits. If this trend continues, with media partners pulling their best content from Hulu once it becomes self-sustaining, that could turn into a long-term problem for Hulu. It’s also bad for consumers, who don’t want to have all of their videos in one or two places rather than have to jump from ColbertNation to TheDailyShow.com to HBO.com to CBS.com and so on.

The economic incentive is too great for media properties to centralize their videos on their own sites. But to consumers, this recentralization looks more like fragmentation and opens up the opportunity for someone else (Steve Jobs, Brian Roberts?) to once again bring it all together in one place. It is clear that consumers don’t want to hunt across the Web for all their shows, but the economics of video advertising are dictating otherwise.

Micropayments startups PlaySpan is racking up the partnerships. The startup has signed deals with hi5, THQ and Nickelodeon, and today, with Adobe. PlaySpan the payments platform for Adobe’s developer service, codenamed Shibuya. PlaySpan powers micro-payments across over 1,000 video games and virtual worlds and has virtual goods storefronts on Facebook, MySpace, within games and on its standalone site.

In private beta, Shibuya allows Adobe developers to monetize their Adobe AIR applications through a try-and-buy mechanism, and allows developers to upload and sell their applications on the Adobe AIR Marketplace. To enable micro-payments via PlaySpan, developers can add a few lines of provisioning code, set the price and trial period, and then publish the application with the payments technology. Developers will also receive reports, analytics, and automatic settlements on a monthly basis.

The Adobe Air Marketplace allows consumers to try paid applications on for free. If they like the application they can purchase it using a credit card, PayPal, an Ultimate Game Card or over 85 other global payment methods provided by PlaySpan.

The micropayments startup has been securing key partnerships, and a deal with Adobe only validates its place as a player in the micropayments space. In December, PlaySpan revealed some telling numbers about the strength of the virtual goods space, reporting that over $30 million was spent on virtual gifts over the holiday season. Last year, PlaySpan acquired micro-transaction app developer Spare Change, which powered micropayments across 700 social networking apps on Facebook, MySpace, and Bebo.