Archives for 2002

is one of relatively few technology journalists who really lives up to the name. He seems to cover his subject relatively honestly, at least, unlike many of his colleagues. Anyhow, he weighs in on the subject of weblogs this week (Will the Blogs Kill Old Media?) and notwithstanding the backhanded compliment to Dave Winer, it’s an OK article. There’s an important hiccup though. Levy wrote, regarding how bloggers get and stay good at it, that it: “…sounds a lot like the formula to succeed as a journalist inside the Big Media leviathan. With the difference that traditional journalists uh, get paid.”

He could equally say that traditional journalists get bought – and many (most?) of them do, without much comment from their unbought colleagues (like Levy, f’rinstance). For the most part, journalists just shrug it off. “What do you expect? It’s just cars, or entertainment, or whatever, that gets bought.” Or, “Of course they’re bought off – that’s how it works, and has to if we want to sell product.”

! I can’t begin to express how much stories like this one – “Star Wars film clones invade the Net” – piss me off. It’s clearly a story planted by some industry PR person or agency, and then parroted by others until soon it becomes real. I call bullshit on corrupt journalists and the papers who encourage them and employ them.

in the Mercury News: Paranoia, stupidity and greed ganging up on the public. “So it comes as no shock that the owners of information and entertainment are trying to protect their own potentially untenable business models. They’ve persuaded their legislative pets in Congress to pass ill-considered laws. They’re busy erecting technological barriers to their customer’s choice and well-being. Law and technology are combining to carve away your rights in favor of the owners’ control.”

, it gets crazier. You think that broadcasters can’t possibly be proposing what I suggested? Consider the following scenario: “Sitcom X” is a 22 minute show, and along with specific ads, the whole thing is a copyright owned by station Y. By turning on your TV to the program, you (immediately?) agree to watch the whole presentation of that program – those are the terms of service you have agreed to by tuning in to the channel.

Now, it’s 10 minutes later. You have to go to the bathroom. Hang on! According to the owner of the copyright you just agreed to, according to your contract, you must watch the entire show. Following the reasoning of the broadcasters (or the head end suppliers, since not all of them actually broadcast anything), you can’t go to the bathroom – that is in violation of the copyright.

If you think I’m nuts, here you go (from an Inside interview with Jamie Kellner, Chair and CEO of Turner Broadcasting):

JK: Because of the ad skips…. It’s theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you’re going to watch the spots. Otherwise you couldn’t get the show on an ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a commercial or watch the button you’re actually stealing the programming.
CW: What if you have to go to the bathroom or get up to get a Coke?

JK: I guess there’s a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.

Kellner says straight out that it’s a crime, in his view, for TV viewers to go to the bathroom during a program. They’ll tolerate it, but it’s a crime nonetheless.