Is Copyright Shifting Direction?
March 15, 2012
It is tough to search when content is not there. We have been alerted to the threat of censorship from lawmakers by conflicts over legislation such as SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and TPP. We must not ignore a more insidious threat: that of direct dealings between copyright industries and Internet service providers at the behest of government; so warns TechDirt in “UK Government Pressuring Search Engines to Censor Results in Favor of Copyright Industries.”
Rather than laws that would have to be enforced through legal channels, the back-door “notification” system described in the article would submit blacklists to search engines. These lists would name sites accused of infringement, which would then be barred from search results. Any accusation could doom an entire site to obscurity, possibly without recourse. Whitelists of approved media services would also be provided and those sites artificially promoted within search results. Writer Glyn Moody asserts:
Absolute power over search engines’ results in these areas would be handed to industries that hardly have a good track record for adopting a proportionate approach to tackling unauthorized downloads. In particular, they are unlikely to lose much sleep over all the legitimate content that will become invisible when sites of borderline legality are removed from search engines’ results ‘just to be on the safe side.’ And there are no indications that there would be any oversight as to who goes on the lists, or any right of appeal — making it a purely extra-judicial punishment.
It seems that most search engines are balking at the proposed arrangement, for now at least. Moody notes that complying with white lists could be considered anti-competitive and get sites in trouble with the European Commission. Yes, that would be important. Perhaps it is a sign that the whole scheme is a bad idea? How will the legal spat between India, Google, and Facebook work out? Our view: not well.
Cynthia Murrell, March 15, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
More on the Ignorance of Online Users
March 12, 2012
Some folks do not recall the Frenchman who toured the US. A couple of centuries ago, the notion of democracy worked out to a C average. There were some A students and some Fs. But the logic, as I understood the Frenchman, was blah. You may want to refresh your memory of Democracy in America, but may be not. There are basketball games to watch and Peyton Manning’s peregrinations to follow.
I read “Nick Denton on the “‘Tragedy of the Comments’” and thought about how “easy” search, business intelligence, and finding pizza have become. Even conference organizers take the C or average approach, preferring to use the same speaker in several different sessions. Hey, the person is an expert and it is much easier to sign up speakers if we recycle “proven performers”.
Here is a passage from the Denton item which caught my attention:
Once upon a time, in the early days of blogging, Gawker founder Nick Denton said, publishers hoped that the Web would help them “capture the intelligence of the readership.” But now? “That’s a joke,” he said. “That didn’t happen,” Denton said at South by Southwest, in a conversation with blogger and entrepreneur Anil Dash. “It’s a promise that has so not happened that people don’t even have that ambition any more.” The hope was that the Internet would boost the quality of public conversation and let writers and readers collaborate on stories, but instead, he said, there’s been a “tragedy of the commons… or tragedy of the comments.”
Fascinating shift from confidence in any one creating content to a more traditional view. The idea that a poobah knows best seems to be roaring back. It is probably good to be a poobah or at least to think that one is one. Who will be the next William Hearst?
Stephen E Arnold, March 12, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Exogenous Complexity 5: Fees for Online Content
March 7, 2012
I wanted to capture some thoughts sparked by some recent articles about traditional publishing. If you believe that the good old days are coming back for newspapers and magazines, stop reading. If you want to know my thoughts about the challenges many, many traditional publishers face, soldier on. Want to set me straight. Please, use the comments section of this Web log. —Stephen E Arnold
Introduction
I would have commented on the Wall Street Journal’s “Papers Put Faith in Pay Walls” on Monday, March 5, 2012. Unfortunately, the dead tree version of the newspaper did not arrive until this morning (March 6, 2012). I was waiting to find out how long it would take the estimable Wall Street Journal to get my print subscription to me in rural Kentucky. The answer? A day as in “a day late and a dollar short.”
Here’s what I learned on page B5:
As more newspapers close the door on free access to their websites [sic], some publishers are still waiting for paying customers to pour in.
No mention of the alleged calisthenics in which the News Corp.’s staff have undertaken in order to get a story. But the message for me was clear. Newspapers, like most of those dependent on resource rich, non digital methods of generating revenue, have to do something. In the case of the alleged actions of the News Corp. I am hypothesizing that almost anything seems to be worth considering.
Is online to blame? Are dark forces of 12 year olds who download content the root of the challenges? Is technology going to solve another problem or just add to the existing challenges?
Making money online is a tough, thankless task. A happy quack to http://www.calwatchdog.com/tag/sisyphus/
My view is that pay walls are just one manifestation of the wrenching dislocations demographic preferences, technology, financial larking, and plain old stubbornness unleash. The Wall Street Journal explains several pay wall plans; for example, the Wall Street Journal is $207 a year versus the New York Times’s fee of $195.
The answer for me is that I did not miss the hard copy Wall Street Journal too much. I dropped the New York Times print subscription and I seem to be doing okay without that environmentally-hostile bundle of cellulose and chemically-infused ink. Furthermore, I don’t use either the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times online. The reason is that edutainment, soft features, recycled news releases, and sensationalism do not add value to my day in Harrod’s Creek, Kentucky. When I look at an aggregation of stories, sometimes I click and see a full text article from one of these two newspapers. Sometimes I get the story. Sometimes I get asked to sign up. If the story displays, fine. If not, I click to another tab.
When I worked at Halliburton NUS and then at Booz, Allen & Hamilton, reading the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times was part of the “package”. Now I am no longer a blue chip “package.” I am okay with that repositioning. The upside is that I don’t fool with leather briefcases, ties, and white shirts unless I have to attend a funeral. At my own, The downside is that I am getting old, and at age 67 less and less interested in MBA wackiness. I have no doubt I will be decked out in my “real” job attire. For now, I am okay with tan pants, a cheap nylon shirt, a worn Reebok warm up jacket, and whatever information I can view on my computing device.
Newspaper publishing has not adjusted to age as I have. Here’s a factoid from my notes about online revenue:
When printed content shifts to digital form, the online version shifts from “must have” to “nice to have”. As a result, the revenues from online cost more to generate and despite the higher costs, the margins suck. Publishers don’t like to accept the fact that the shift to online alters the value of the content. Publishers have high fixed costs, and online thrives when costs are driven as low as possible.
Net net: Higher costs and lower revenue are the status quo for most traditional publishers. Sure, there are exceptions, but these are often on a knife edge of survival. Check out the hapless Thomson Corp. Just don’t take the job of CEO because it is a revolving door peppered with logos of Thomson and Reuters and financial results which are deteriorating. Think Thomson is a winner? Jump to Wolters Kluwer, Pearson, or almost any other “real” publishing outfit. These are interesting environment for lawyers and accountants. Journalists are not quite as sanguine as those with golden parachutes and a year or two to “fix up” the balance sheets.
Resistance Emerging to Sci Tech Publishing Status Quo
March 6, 2012
More hassles are brewing for Elsevier Science, as We, Beasties discusses in “The Future of Science Publishing.”
Since the earliest scientific journals began being published in 1665, their key position in the field of science has grown exponentially. They have become so integral that it is nigh impossible to build a successful career as a scientist without publishing in them. The publishers of these journals vigorously guard their territory; even now, they are throwing their weight behind the Research Works Act, a proposed US law that would nullify the current mandate: that any scientific data derived from public funding must be made available to the public within one year of publication. So, we helped pay for the research, but wouldn’t be able to read the results without paying again? Hmph.
Prominent mathematician Timothy Gowers has had enough such tactics, and has begun a publishing boycott of Elsevier, one of the largest journal publishers. If such a boycott expands to all the publishers, and it might, those who participate will risk prestige and grant money until the system changes. How many will take such a risk?
We, Beasties writer Kevin presents his own vision of a post-journal-centric field:
“In my idyllic world, every lab has their own blog, and publishes their results in real time, sharing them on a site like ResearchGate. Individual figures can be indexed on something like FigShare. Scientists can post their negative or confusing data and ask the entire world for help, or talk about their research plans and get critiqued. Meanwhile, altmetrics are being generated in real time to assess the validity of data, and scientists peer review on their own blogs or at some central location. The distribution of scientific knowledge returns to the model of the 19th century – free and openly distributed – but now also instantly and globally distributed at the same time.”
Sounds great. Will grass-roots action by scientists be enough to break the stranglehold of entrenched science publishers like Elsevier?
Cynthia Murrell, March 6, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
About.com: Digital Fail?
February 22, 2012
At a time when most things digital are booming, one company trying to build a digital strategy is failing magnificently.
The New York Times announced that About.com has suffered a 67% drop in profits and that revenues are falling as well. The New York Times acquired the site in 2005 when About.com was one of the hottest sites on the Internet and has recently been trying to create a digital strategy based on high-quality content. However, according to a recent article, “The New York Time’s About.com: From All-Star to Albatross,” the change is quite visible. We learn:
… it’s unclear if About is still viable as a brand. While the company launched a marketing campaign in 2010 to differentiate it from other ‘how-to’ sites, there’s little evidence the message resonated with users. While readers may seek out individual About “guides,” the 80% search traffic figure reflects how About remains a detour not a destination for the vast majority of visitors.
The company attributes the change to Google’s decision to downgrade the company’s pages in its search results. Plausible, but I also feel the need to note that nothing digital seems to work at this outfit. Fascinating. Perhaps the company should look internally for the issue.
Andrea Hayden, February 22, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Online and Medicine: Responsibility Falls on Customer
February 19, 2012
Sunday morning in Harrod’s Creek. Reasonably quiet for now. Gun fire will crackle when the sun rises. Police sirens will howl as some Commonwealth residents crash their cars after a late night run on the Bourbon Trail.
These are consequences of human choices. Guns do not fire themselves. Automobiles, at least so far, do not drive themselves.
Two stories caught my attention, and the way in which an “issue” was handled by writers and their publications make clear the odd handling of human intent.
First, navigate to “Infants’ Tylenol Recalled.” The hook is that a large company, Johnson & Johnson, manufactured or caused to be manufactured a medicine which can do harm not good. I do not know if the story is accurate, but it contains an interesting passage:
Company officials say in some cases the flow restrictor was pushed into the bottle when inserting the syringe. The recall applies to one-ounce bottles of grape flavored Infants Tylenol Oral Suspension. There have been no adverse events from the problem according to McNeil.
So no adverse effect to a child given Tylenol. Okay, the company is not chastised, nor is the article placing blame. On the surface, it seems that the company facing the allegation took action were it not for this statement: “Recall-plagued Johnson & Johnson is pulling all infant Tylenol off the U.S. Market.” So somewhere in this recall story people made decisions and people did the alleged action to put infants at risk.
Now point your browser thing at “Google’s Privacy Invasion: It’s Your Fault.” The story addresses the allegation that either Apple or Google took competitive actions. The online customer, in my opinion, is a clueless about the risk of certain online actions as is an infant taking medicine. Note what the “real” journalists at InfoWorld offer:
No, let’s put the blame where it belongs, on us, the users of the Internet. We rely on free services like Gmail while insisting on “privacy,” a term that we probably can’t even define to our collective satisfaction. We accept terms of service contracts and privacy policies that explain in excessive detail how we will not get privacy, how our information will be used, and then we object.
So instead of privacy, let’s talk about control. You do have some of that, still. Make some choices about how your information will be used–because it will be used–instead of accepting default settings.
Okay, online customers are at fault. Why are both stories giving the entities facing these allegations such gentle treatment. Humans make decisions at companies which have an impact on consumers who assume, trust, or expect products to work without a problem.
I find this interesting because as products and services become more complex, those using the problems are making decisions which deliver customer satisfaction. Maybe customer satisfaction is not a priority? Maybe journalists are finding it easier to ignore or shift the blame?
Fascinating. When one tries to search for information about these matters, the content which surfaces is not about the deeper problems. When content is removed or shaped, the “facts” of an issue become secondary to the spin. “Consumers, it is your fault” becomes the reality. I don’t believe this assertion for one New York minute. And pharma companies? Yikes.
Stephen E Arnold, February 19, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Palantir Applies Lipstick, Much Lipstick
February 16, 2012
I had three people send me a link to the Washingtonian article “Killer App.” On the surface, the write up is about search and content processing, predictive analytics, and the value of these next generation solutions. Underneath the surface, I see more of a public relations piece. but that’s just my opinion.
Let me point out that the article was more of a political write up than a technology article. Palantir, in my opinion, has been pounding the pavement, taking journalists to Starbuck’s, and working overtime. The effort is understandable. In 2010 and 2011, Palantir was involved in a dispute with i2 Group, now a unit of IBM, about intellectual property. The case was resolved and the terms of the settlement were not revealed. I know zero about the legal hassles but I did pick up some information that suggested the i2 Group was not pleased with Palantir’s ability to parse Analyst Notebook file types.
I steered clear of the hassle because in the past I have done work for i2 Ltd., the predecessor to the i2 Group. I know that the file structure was a closely held and highly prized chunk of information. At any rate, the dust is now settling, and any company with some common sense would be telling its story to anyone who will listen. Palantir has a large number of smart people and significant funding. Therefore, getting publicity to support marketing is a standard business practice.
Now what’s with the Washingtonian article? First, the Washington is a consumer publication aimed at the affluent, socially aware folks who live in the District, Maryland, and Virginia. The story kicks off with a description of Palantir’s system which can parse disparate information and make sense of items which would be otherwise lost in the flood of data rushing through most organizations today. The article said:
To conduct what became known as Operation Fallen Hero, investigators turned to a little-known Silicon Valley software company called Palantir Technologies. Palantir’s expertise is in finding connections among people, places, and events in large repositories of electronic data. Federal agents had amassed a trove of reporting on the drug cartels, their members, their funding mechanisms and smuggling routes.
Then the leap:
Officials were so impressed with Palantir’s software that seven months later they bought licenses for 1,150 investigators and analysts across the country. The total price, including training, was $7.5 million a year. The government chose not to seek a bid from some of Palantir’s competitors because, officials said, analysts had already tried three products and each “failed to provide the necessary comprehensive solution on missions where our agents risk life and limb.” As far as Washington was concerned, only Palantir would do. Such an endorsement would be remarkable if it were unique. But over the past three years, Palantir, whose Washington office in Tysons Corner is just six miles from the CIA’s headquarters, has become a darling of the US law-enforcement and national-security establishment. Other agencies now use Palantir for some variation on the challenge that bedeviled analysts in Operation Fallen Hero—how to organize and catalog intimidating amounts of data and then find meaningful insights that humans alone usually can’t.
Sounds good. The only issue is that there are a number of companies delivering this type of solution. The competitors range from vendors of SharePoint add ins to In-Q-Tel funded Digital Reasoning to JackBe, a mash up and fusion outfit in Silver Spring, Maryland. Even Google is in the game via its backing of Recorded Future, a company which asserts that it can predict what will happen. There are quite sophisticated services provided by low profile SAIC and SRA International. I would toss in my former employers Halliburton and Booz, Allen & Hamilton, but these firms are not limited to one particular government solution. Bottom line: There are quite a few heavy hitters in this market space. Many of them outpace Palantir’s technology and Palantir’s business methods, in my opinion
In short, Palantir is a relative newcomer in a field of superstar technology companies. In my opinion, the companies providing predictive solutions and data fusion systems are like the NFL Pro Bowl selections. Palantir is a player, and, in my opinion, a firm which operates at a competitive level. However, Palantir is not the quarterback of the winning team.
From my viewpoint in Harrod’s Creek, the Washingtonian writes about Palantir without providing substantive context. In-Q-Tel funds many organizations and has taken heat because many of these firms’ solutions are stand alone systems. Integrations without legal blow back is important. Firms which end up in messy litigation increase security risks; they do not reduce security risks. Short cuts are not unknown in Washington political circles. It is important to work with companies which demonstrate high value behaviors, avoid political and legal mud fights, and deliver value over time.
The Washingtonian article tells an interesting story, but it is a bit like a short story. Reality has been shaped I believe. Palantir is presented out of context, and I think that the article is interesting for three reasons:
- What it asserts about a company which is one of a number of firms providing next generation intelligence solutions
- The magazine itself which presented a story which reminded me of a television late night advertorial
- The political agenda which reveals something about Washington journalism.
In short, an quite good example of 21st century “real” journalism. That lipstick looks good. Does it contain lead?
Stephen E Arnold, February 16, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Rapidhog Has the Answers
February 15, 2012
We’ve found another information aggregation service that taps into the “collective wisdom” of the Web. Rapidhog is a place where folks can buy and sell knowledge. Its About page states:
Rapidhog connects the people who need to know and the people who do know to create a community of information exchange. The site allows people to freely ask questions and obtain answers while allowing those who answer to earn money for their help. It will also allow those who have information they find helpful such as video tutorials and walkthroughs to offer those to our members at a cost.
My question is about quality control. How do I know the person to whom I’m giving a few bucks to answer my question isn’t just making something up? Or, more likely, performing the Web search I could have done for free and probably in less time than it took to post my query?
With the Associated Press focusing on certain aggregation services, those offering new types of roll up services may want to check their rear view mirror.
Cynthia Murrell, February 15, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
New Oracle E-Book
February 3, 2012
Oracle brews a data latté with cinnamon you may enjoy if you if you suck down this new book. The Salvatoreyc blog presents for download, “Oracle XSQL: Combining SQL, Oracle Text, XSLT and Java to Publish Dynamic Web Content.” The product description states:
Welcome to the exciting world of eXtended Structured Query Language (XSQL). ‘Oracle XSQL: Combining SQL, Oracle Text, XSLT and Java to Publish Dynamic Web Content’ presents a complete approach to building XML Web applications and Web services with XSQL, Oracle Text, SQL, XSLT, and Java from data found in Oracle databases. Companion Web site contains the code examples in the book as well.
Sounds helpful. The download is only available to Media Search members, and the download page takes you right to their signup sheet. Naturally, there is a fee.
Cynthia Murrell, February 3, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Thomson Reuters Get Social
February 2, 2012
If you don’t association Thomson Reuters and social, you are not alone. Fresh from the innovative print magazine for the consumers at the World Economic Forum, Thomson Reuters is going social. You can check out the service at the Reuters Social site. According to “Introducing Reuters Social Pulse,”
Today we launched Social Pulse, our new social media hub on Reuters.com designed to show you the most talked-about news, companies and influencers across the Web. The first thing you’ll see on the page is the news most popular in Reuters social network.
Interesting. One question comes to mind, “How will this generate money to get the $13 billion dollar outfit growing and producing enough cash to pay dividends, debts coming due, and the costs of innovations like the social site and, of course, the consumer magazine for Davos types?”
Stephen E Arnold, February 3, 2012
Sponsored by Pandia.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
