Copyright and the Generation Angle
January 12, 2010
Short honk: If you are into the copyright battles now underway, you may find “The Copyright Bubble” interesting. At a minimum, it makes clear that a demographic blip is part of the problem. The thought I had was that parents of copyright ignorers may want to take another run at changing their children’s behaviors. If a child—now 25 –embraces the copyright bad mentality, perhaps more aggressive parental action is needed. The implication of the write up is that when old folks head to the traditional heaven where the Internet does not work, copyright will be okay. Failing that, the author of the Copyright Bubble may be correct.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2010
I know the disclosure ruling became effective on December 1, 2010. It is the new year and I still am writing this baloney for no money. I think I will reveal this fact to the Marine Mammal Commission.
Demand Media in the Hot Seat
January 12, 2010
Bulk content producers are the latest next generation content business that irritates the poobahs in “real” publishing companies. The DNA of Demand Media marries MySpace.com with writers hungry to get their name in the Google index and earn some cash achieving this goal. That’s a potent combination. I must admit I don’t see much to raise my feathers. The database business is built along similar lines. Demand Media adds one or two twists; namely:
- Writers create content, post it to the Demand Media’s Pluck system, index the story, and get paid. No annoying human editors slow down the process.
- Media companies buy these stories, slap their label on them, and sell them in other publishing entities. Demand Media lists some of the media superstars who find a cheap source of good enough content ideal for their readers and the CFO’s blood pressure.
- New investors include some media savvy outfits; that is, smart money from Goldman Sachs, 3i Group, Generation Partners, Oak Investment Partners and Spectrum Equity Investors.
You can see a list of some of the Demand Media customers in the graphics on the Demand Media Web site that USA Today seems to be a customer of some Demand Media services.
When I read “Demand Media May Be Bad for Social Media but Not for Journalism”, I was surprised that the criticism of a company producing content would extend to social media. Here’s the passage that caught my attention:
I believe Demand Media is more of a threat to social media communications than it is to journalism and journalistic standards because of the kind of content it provides and what it does by providing search optimized content for corporate sites and evergreen content for the news industry.
With SEO undergoing seismic shocks, content has become a hot commodity for some Webmasters. Most companies can’t write too well or quickly. Demand Media has a method that generates several thousand stories a day. The company allegedly optimized the content, although I think this type of numerical recipe is like Macbeth witches’ brew. A great stage effect. A site with zero content can obtain Demand Media content. The inclusion of content might be just what the PageRank doctor ordered. Who knows?
Demand Media is not a “real” publisher. The coinage of the term “content farm” was a stroke of genius because it made it possible to discuss blogs, semi real publishing, and real publishing in a more interesting way. The idea is that a blog may be written by a few people but we know that blogs are not “real journalism”, according to some experts. The “real publishing company” engages in a centuries old tradition of picking content, paying a writer to write to the needs of the market as the publishing company sees them. This top down approach is where the notion of “knowing best” and “quality writing” emanates. The “content farm” is some weird beast that is worse than a blog and concerned less about “quality” than a traditional publishing company.
Baloney. The “content farm” is an information factory just like units of the Bureau of National Affairs, LexisNexis, West Publishing, and most commercial database companies. But “content farm” is way more suggestive than an “information factory”. What’s happening is that a phrase is making it possible to have a discussion about a business method that has been around a long, long time.
What’s happening is that certain high volume content production methods are being applied to different markets and at a price point that is appealing to some customers and to Webmasters who need a way to get traffic to a Web site.
Lots of talk over a business method that has been around for decades in electronic information. This is one more example of folks not knowing what they don’t know. In this case, the chatter is interesting but unlikely to halt the shift from top down content generation methods to alternatives.
The question I am considering: What happens when Google deploys its automated content generation technologies? I am looking forward to another big argument because when Google moves it will be too late to do anything about smart software that can write news and other types of documents with zero humans. None. How about that for low cost production. Demand Media pays humans and Google won’t have to. That will be something to see unfold.
Stephen E Arnold, January 12, 2010
A freebie. Thank goodness there seems to be an endless supply of regulatory authorities concerned about who pays me to write a blog article. Today my boss is the Department of Agriculture, a fine group.
The Skiff May Not Be a Magazine Industry Life Preserver
January 11, 2010
TechCrunch’s “Can the Skiff Save the Magazine Industry?” strikes a good balance between hope and reality. Media giant Hearst, like other publishing outfits, are looking for a digital alternative to paper. If you are going to float an industry, you need one heck of a life preserver. TechCrunch said:
Skiff isn’t in this game to make hardware. They’re in it to save their industry from imminent demise. Magazines, as they exist now, are expensive artifacts of an industrial process that has been refined over the past century. They are eye-catching pieces of typographic art and they contain some of the best writing of any generation in a package that appears on a monthly basis and is sold or mailed to readers in paper format. But – and here’s where Skiff comes in – there is no perceived value in print magazines anymore. They are expensive to produce and circulation is falling drastically, resulting in a panic in the industry. The solution? Subsidized ereaders and reading services that will keep the subscription model from failing. The Skiff is the first of these efforts and, if first mover advantage remains true, they may be the winner.
Maybe. But the problems of the magazine industry were evident when Bill Ziff, a pretty sharp magazine guy, decided that magazines were not a good business in the early 1990s, an e reader is not going to reverse what seems to be an irreversible decline. TechCrunch identifies the obvious problems: the environmental costs of paper, declining circulation, and advertisers who want more than a 32 page publication mailed to a person like me who rarely looks at magazines any more.
I would add to the TechCrunch comments one point that few like to talk about; namely, the killers of the magazine industry are the children of publishers, lawyers, and other white collar types. Magazines fail to enchant the teens in my dentist’s waiting room. Last visit, the three teens waiting for a check up ignored the pile of magazines with big names like National Geographic and Motor Trend. The teens were thumbing and finger tapping in tune with a digital world that has little interest in magazines.
My hunch is that a magazine on a dedicated reading device won’t create too many new magazine readers. A percentage of the upper income, 40 somethings will buy a reading device. What the magazine needs is readers, not gizmos. The problem is that the children of upper class, white collar workers are not following in their parents’ footsteps. My son (University of Virginia) and wife (Duke Law) subscribe to the New Yorker. I do too. I like the cartoons and some of the essays but not as many as I did when I was younger. I can’t figure out some of the ads either. The last time my son and I were in an airport together we skipped the news stand. Neither of us buy magazines while traveling. The offerings are expensive, out of date, and an extra thing to carry.
When I commuted from Louisville to New York and San Francisco, I used to load up on the magazines that looked interesting. Now the cover stories don’t have much magnetic appeal.
Maybe government subsidies will work? Maybe magazines can be operated by a charity? Maybe magazines can be owned by Warren Buffet who funds them out of a sense of social significance? Maybe governments will tax Google and use the money to keep ink-on-paper publishing afloat.
The Kindle clones won’t have the buoyancy the magazine industry needs and needs quickly.
Stephen E Arnold, January 11, 2010
Yep, another freebie. I suppose I need to report this to the US Department of Navy, an outfit with some skill in keeping giant things afloat.
The London Times Blocks Newsnow.co.uk
January 10, 2010
The big experiment is underway. News Corp believes that its content is worth money. Outfits indexing public Web sites find that certain content is no longer available for spidering and indexing. Newsnow.co.uk—a UK based news headline service—posted a message I saw earlier today (January 8, 2010).
In my experience, a shift from one medium to another does not automatically bring the former customers along. In fact, there is attrition. The question is, “How many users of aggregation sites or Web indexing services like Google will change their information grazing habits and pay for the content?” In my experience, each medium attracts a user base with a distinct fingerprint.
Online services are tricky beasts. A spreadsheet jockey can plug in assumptions to make a move like the pay wall around certain content work on paper. Getting those assumptions right is a much more difficult task. It is sufficiently difficult that there are more failures than successes.
Can Rupert Murdoch make his online strategy generate enough money to make up for rising costs and declining print advertisements? The name of the game in online is getting lots of information. The content then works like a magnet, pulling users to the information. Mr. Murdoch is betting that his online strategy which other content producers seem to be emulating will work.
My experience suggests that the cost may be very high and lead to severe cost reduction actions. I don’t think he will fire himself. Others may not be so lucky.
Stephen E Arnold, January 10, 2010
This is a freebie. No one paid me to point out the long odds that News Corp faces. I suppose I must report this to the Jockeys Club. Quite a risky wager in my opinion.
The Paywall Chronicles: The Value of Fuzziness
January 9, 2010
Short honk: Getting money for electronic information is tough. A peek inside a new media financial concept appears in “Steven Brill’s Growing Mound of Twaddle.” The most interesting part of the write up is a chart that plots alleged customers with announced customers. Zero seems to flat line as the announced customer tally soars.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 9, 2010
A freebie. I know at least one reader thinks I am a PR bunny. I suppose I must report this to the Fish & Wildlife crew.
Publishers’ Savior or Entozoan: The Perils of Technology
January 5, 2010
David Carr’s “A Savior in the Form of a Tablet” in the January 4, 2010, hard copy of the New York Times on page B-1 reminded me of Jacques Ellul and his discussion of technology in La Technique: L’enjeu du siècle. The basic idea is that technology has some upsides and some downsides. The catch, according to Father Ellul, is that if the downside is really bad, the fix is more technology. Rinse, and repeat. It may be tough to get tech out of the system. Hence, keep the entozoan in your mind’s eye. It will be in your tummy out of sight but “there”.
Once technology bites, the remediation may be more technology. Source: http://img.tfd.com/wn/EF/60B01-parasite.gif
Mr. Carr focuses on the hopes of publishers for Apple’s rumored “tablet”. Not only is he pointing to a future in which those younger than the average purchaser of the Kindle buy and read magazines, he is by his own admission an optimist.
If you poke around a bit, you will be able to locate quite a bit of information or disinformation about the alleged Apple tablet will come to the rescue of the struggling world of traditional publishing. Some examples plucked from my trusty Overflight file on this subject include:
- The Washington Post’s “Hey! Look behind You!” The point is that tablets offer an opportunity to traditional media giants.
- NewsFactor Network’s “Apple’s Tablet May Come with Content Subscriptions” which translates to hard cash right now, folks.
- And Media Bistro’s uplifting “Apple Tablet Rumor of the Day: 30/70 Split with Publishers”. If accurate, Apple will give publishers more dough than publishers allegedly pay writers. Wow. Let the good times roll.
The music industry and probably the television industry may have a different view of the implications of a tie up with Apple or any other company that moves to a position of near market dominance. The music crowd has learned that Apple is pretty much a big dog in the tune-filled kennel. Even some TV execs with ultra bright smiles have learned that Apple and other companies in its position can be insensitive to the needs of the high fliers in the television game.
Here’s a thought, just a thought from the addled goose.
Let’s assume that the alleged tablet is real. Further, let’s assume that it takes customers from several different segments. Are these folks the magazine-reading type? Apple seems to appeal to a younger, more hip crowd. In fact, some of the most loyal Apple device customers may be found in places like Google. Microsoft, with an estimated 25 to 35 percent of its employees using Apple iPhones, can be safely excluded.
The tablet sucks in lots of buyers. But what is the projected demand for for-fee content on this alleged Apple tablet. My rough guess is that most of the buyers will be interested in Web surfing, video, and some Apple apps. I am not sure that my digital buying habits will change when I get an alleged Apple tablet. I think the Kindle device sucks, but I like the Kindle app on my iTouch. I don’t buy magazines in hard copy or digital form any longer for three reasons:
- The information I seek is generally not in hard copy or digital magazines. You can read the triggers for this Web log and see that I rely on industry stories, news releases, and company Web sites. I just referenced the hard copy of the New York Times, but I don’t like the online New York Times at all. I use the paper version. I am 65, remember?
- The information in magazines is stale. Here’s an example. Several years ago we subscribed to Future Publishing’s Net magazine. The magazine in 2006 had useful articles and included a disc with some interesting and little known to me software. When I dropped the subscription last year, the Net magazine content was way behind what I could find easily online. The Web became more timely, and the Net magazine became too slow and, therefore, uninteresting to me. Good bye to my $200 annual subscription.
- The baby boomers are heading to the rest home. The lads and lasses behind this cohort are not into reading books and magazines at the rate my grandmother and grandfather read them. I noticed that my parents stopped reading magazines and books as they aged. I still chug along, but I think that the demographics are working against traditional media. Book stores are looking like gone geese because most books sell to a couple of hundred thousand people. The rest of the US population struggles along without a dependence on books and magazines.
Magazine readers are rich and older. Books and newspapers are similar. What if Apple tablet buyers are really young and don’t expand the market? Source: http://www.mediainfocenter.org/magazine/mac/demographics.asp
What this means is that if Apple or another company sucks in the customers, those customers may not make the market for books and magazines larger. The Apple or whoever concentrates the market and we get a replay of the iTunes video.
In short, today’s hopes creates tomorrow’s “problem”. A bit of a Gordian knot for traditional media. The white knight may be a combination of Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan, two guys who took care of themselves first and then sort of chilled out.
A Gordian knot. Source: http://c2.api.ning.com/files/j2Rt6xrxQvd4X142DvH46mGI33tVpowUvzbh*SoB4WyF-7N29C0omG5*5ikELTZNRsGcMfZX8ZFZA6mPRzaKPEGzbJrE*hK2/Gordian.jpg
The Gordian knot may be a small component of a much larger problem: perhaps the straitjacket?
Stephen E. Arnold, January 7, 2010
A freebie. No one pays me to write this wacky stuff. I must report this to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
GrabIt Described for Noobs
January 4, 2010
Usenet can be a treasure chest of information. If I mention Usenet in a lecture, I see few sparks of recognition. PCWorld’s “Old-School Secret: Delve Into Usenet With GrabIt” does a good job of explaining Usenet content and providing useful information about GrabIt, an open source tool for accessing the content and assembling split files. The write up also includes links to other software that makes Usenet suitable for the under 25 cohort. Useful write up which is not about search or content processing. But findability and access are close cousins.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 4, 2010
A freebie. Whom do I tell? I know, I know. When Washington DC reopens for the new year, my oversight authority is probably the National Institute for Literacy, an entity which I am confident reads Usenet postings.
The Plight of eBooks: A Swiftian View
January 4, 2010
Most folks in Harrods Creek don’t read too many books. The local Barnes & Nobles, about a day’s ride by mule, is filled with book lights, knick knacks, and greeting cards. Because the addled goose has no work and no friends, he has time to read. I clip along at two or three books a week, and I buy most of them online. The sort of book that strikes my fancy like Taichi Skaiya’s “The Knowledge Value Revolution” or W. Brian Arthur’s “The Nature of Technology” are not too popular. These books don’t mix well with most folks’s idea of a fun read, and I don’t think in the entire US there are more than a few thousand individuals who share the addled goose’s taste in books.
When the book stores lose their best customers—that is, the folks who actually read several books a week or a month for that matter—there’s not much of a future for them. When popular books find their way into pirated eBook editions, publishers are going to be squeezed even harder.
Tomorrow’s pirates must be stopped today. Without people who read, the book publishing industry will be saved. Er, that doesn’t sound exactly right, does it? Never mind. Stamp out reading piracy by eliminating reading or children, whichever is easier. Image source: http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/28/schools291006_wideweb__470x312,0.jpg
CNN has an interesting article on its Web site: “Digital Piracy Hits the E-book Industry.” For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was:
Statistics are hard to come by, and many publishers are reluctant to discuss the subject for fear of encouraging more illegal downloads. But digital theft may pose a big headache in 2010 for the slumping publishing industry, which relies increasingly on electronic reading devices and e-books to stimulate sales.
Ah, the eBook readers from publishers and bookstores are encouraging piracy. Is that an unintended consequence?
Another passage caught my attention:
However, some evidence suggests that authors’ and publishers’ claims of damage from illegal piracy may be overstated. Recent statistics have shown that consumers who purchase an e-reader buy more books than those who stick with traditional bound volumes. Amazon reports that Kindle owners buy, on average, 3.1 times as many books on the site as other customers.
I get it. Readers are stealing eBooks but may buy more books.
With fewer readers per capita, the problem may work itself out. If no solution is found, maybe the publishers can seek help from the US government? Could it evolve that not teaching student to read, shifting attention to videos, and using government watchdogs to curtail reading will make the problem go away? I hope so. With no one reading, I would not have to write the articles in this Web log about unintended consequences and failures in developing viable business models.
Oyez, oyez. I am reporting to the administrative office of the Bankruptcy Courts that I was not paid to write this article about businesses likely to face bankruptcy. A bit of a virtuous circle is it not?
Google Press, O Reilly, and a Possible Info Discontinuity
January 4, 2010
Google’s book on HTML5 is moving along. Soon it will be available for sale. At that moment, a seismic shock is triggered in the already Jello like world of traditional publishing. Oh, if you don’t know about the Google Press imprint, you can catch up on your reading by looking at:
- HTML5’s rel=”noreferrer”
- A version of the “book’s title page”
- Mr. Pilgrim’s own statement
For a more robust discussion of the tools Google will use as it solves the copyright problem for new, significant content, check out Google: The Digital Gutenberg, September 2009. Better yet, write me at seaky2000 at yahoo dot com and inquire about a 90 minute briefing on Google’s publishing technology and the disruptions these technologies are likely to let loose in 2010.
First, let me provide some context.
In Google: The Digital Gutenberg I pointed out that Google’s infrastructure works like a digital River Rouge. Put stuff in at one end and things come out the other. The steady progress of Google toward a clean, tidy solution to copyright hassles is for Google to become a publisher. What goes in at one end are content objects and what comes out the other can be just about anything Google can program its manufacturing system to produce.
Now I know that the publishers want Google to [a] quit being Google, which is tough since the Google is little more than a manifestation of technology anybody could have glued together 11 years ago, [b] subsidize publishers so the arbiters of what’s smart and what’s stupid can continue as museum curators of information, and [c] give publishers some of the profits from advertising so publishers can shop for white shoes and vintage motor yachts.
Google uses algorithms like a fishmonger to convert the beastie into tasty, easily sold fillets. Image source: http://www.fishingkites.co.nz/cleaning-fish/filleting_fish/fillet_2.jpg
The solution is simpler. When Google signs up an author, Google offers terms. The author takes the terms or leaves the terms. Now the Google does not go quickly into that good night. The Google takes baby steps. Google has a fondness for Tim O’Reilly, and it supports number of O’Reilly ventures, including the somewhat interesting Government 2.0 conference.
eWeek Maddening Ad and Even Wackier Analysis of Bing and Google
December 31, 2009
A big IBM ad plopped itself in the middle of my netbook’s 10 inch screen. The ad was in Adobe’s Flash technology and the whiz kids who crafted this dorky blob forced me to click around until I made it go away. Pretty annoying, and almost as annoying as the “slideshow” called “How Microsoft Bing Could Challenge Google in 2010”. The slides are little more than a series of facts and comments designed to generate page views. Clicking to advance the slideshow was maddening, but the argument was even wackier. There was no analysis. There were statements and facts about a supposition that Microsoft would hook up with News Corp in one more effort to kill Google. Won’t work. The battle does not exist. Here’s why:
- The fight is an unequal one. Google has nuclear bombs. Microsoft has dump trucks with fertilizer and diesel fuel.
- The users are habituated to a Google world. Changing habits is going to take time and money. Microsoft has money, but I am not so sure about time.
- Microsoft can team up with traditional media in the hope that a lack of “real journalism” will hobble Google. Wrong. Google can just hire people to write content exclusively for Google. When that happens, game over.
The Google is being more patient than I would be. I would create the Google Press and put an end to this baloney. I have four or five publishers. I love each. I would dump them in a heartbeat if Google offered to publish my next monograph and give me a slice of the revenue. Traditional publishers are in the blockbuster business. The blockbuster business if very risky. Google is in the information access business. If Google becomes a publisher of news, scholarly journals, and monographs, Google can “own” the rights. Where would people go to get information access? My answer: Googzilla.
My suggestion is find a way to generate money from Google and surf on the beast. Forcing Google to become a publisher is a death sentence for some outfits.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 31, 2009
I must disclose to the US Senate that I was not paid to write about the power of Google as a nation state. Once it becomes a publisher, Google may pass its own laws and issue Google bucks. Pretty interesting thought, right?
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
