PHP Hosts

Ross Pruden points us to the news that Zen Films, a decade old production house, is launching a new storytelling project, which they admit is partly inspired by the CwF+RtB model that we talk about here. One of the cool things here is that rather than just making a “movie” or a “book,” they’ve this is a “transmedia” project. That is, it’s a single story, but told from the viewpoints of (at least) three different participants in the story. One participant’s story will be told via a novella, another via a blog and the third via video webisodes. They’re still working on the full “reasons to buy,” but the initial focus appears to be on offering a combination of convenience and time saving (two important scarcities) by letting you buy access to the full package of content (even as they’re just releasing initial segments slowly online). The project is being written by an award winning crime/thriller author. Zen Films is also looking to sign some sponsors (selling the attention scarcity) but seem open to other ideas as well. It definitely sounds like an interesting experiment — but perhaps we can have a discussion here about additional scarcities that could be offered. Also, I’m wondering if there are ways to make the “connection” element stronger. A great story is certainly one way to connect, but I wonder if Zen Films can also set up a way to build a bigger community around the story, that makes them feel more connected to it and more bought into the concept…

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Cyclists will be able to use Google Maps to plot directions around 150 U.S. cities when bike directions go live on Google later on Tuesday.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

We’ve covered some of Rescuecom’s bizarre lawsuit against Google for selling Adwords based on Rescuecom’s trademarks. The lawsuit has been going on for a while, without Rescuecom getting very far. At almost every turn it was pointed out that what was happening was not trademark infringement. Finally, after many years, Rescuecom has given up and dropped the case… but in the process it’s declaring “victory” in the lawsuit. Seriously. The explanation for the “victory”? That Google now lets trademark holders remove trademarks from the “keyword suggestion” tool. Only problem? Google enabled this in 2005.

Basically, the more likely story is that Rescuecom knew it was going to lose and just gave up and declared victory.

Oh, and also, just a few months ago, we noted that Rescuecom was on the other side of nearly an identical lawsuit, in which it was buying ads on Best Buy trademarks (hypocrisy much?). Being involved in two lawsuits at the same time we’re you’re making totally contradicting arguments isn’t likely to end well. So it seems likely that given the two lawsuits, and the likelihood of losing the Google one, Rescuecom threw in the towel on that one and then pretended it “won” for the sake of a press release. Based on that logic, can we declare “victory” in our decision not to sue Rescuecom for insulting our intelligence?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Software developers can cater to Google Apps customers through a new application store announced at Google’s Campfire One event in Mountain View.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

Last week, there were reports that the EU trade policy folks had decided to stand up for ACTA transparency, and now it looks like they’re really doing it. As various reports are noting, a joint resolution was put forth by nearly all party groups in the EU Parliament demanding that ACTA negotiations be opened up. It also goes further, demanding that there be a ban on imposing “three strikes” laws included as well and a promise that ACTA will not impose personal searches at the border. This is tremendous news, and if this gets approved, it could reshape ACTA in a positive way. But, of course, let’s see how the US reacts. While repeatedly insisting that it wasn’t the US that was trying to keep negotiations secret, at this point, it looks like the only countries that are actively opposed to transparency in negotiations remain South Korea and Singapore — with the US remaining silent. This would be the time at which the USTR needs to stand up and either open up the negotiations or admit that it’s the reason they’ve been so secretive all along.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

We recently wrote how some special interests have been playing up the idea that there’s some sort of cyberwar going on that the US is losing. Of course, there have been similar claims going back for a decade, without anything to support it. Are there state-supported hackers breaking into computers of other countries? Absolutely. Does that reach the level of “cyberwar”? Not at all. At best its a bit of espionage and maybe a tiny bit of sabotage, but escalating it to the cyberwar level only is good for companies trying to sell “solutions.” Thankfully, it sounds like there’s actually some sanity in the White House over this, as the top cybersecurity adviser to the president, Howard Schmidt, is playing down the whole “cyberwar” rhetoric in an interview with Wired:

“There is no cyberwar,” Schmidt told Wired.com in a sit-down interview Wednesday at the RSA Security Conference in San Francisco.

“I think that is a terrible metaphor and I think that is a terrible concept,” Schmidt said. “There are no winners in that environment.”

Instead, Schmidt seems to be focused on the real issue: espionage. Hopefully, Schmidt’s view prevails, and other politicians aren’t swept into the moral panic around a non-existent “cyberwar.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Michael Scott points us to a blog post by Peter Fleischer, the Global Privacy Counsel for Google — perhaps better known as one of the three Google execs to be convicted on criminal charges due to a video some kids uploaded to Google Video, which the Italian courts believe Google did not take down fast enough. In the blog post, Fleischer discusses the balance between the right to privacy and the right to free expression, noting that posting a photo online is part of free expression, but if that photo shows anyone else, European privacy laws suggest you may be guilty of violating someone’s privacy (which is what Fleischer and the Google executives were convicted of doing). In discussing this balance, Fleischer notes that while there are plenty of regulators in charge of protecting privacy in Europe, there don’t seem to be the equivalent regulators in charge of protecting freedom of expression:

Both freedom of expression and privacy are fundamental human rights. But those rights are not both equally enforced, protected or policed. There are literally thousands of data protection bureaucrats in Europe whose job is to enforce European data protection regulations. As far as I can tell, there is not a single government official in all of Europe whose sole job is to do the same for freedom of expression. Curious, no?

As I go to privacy-centric conferences where people invariably talk about the problems and risks of social networking sites, I’m often the odd guy out who seems to think that they’re also precious platforms for freedom of expression. Lots of guys in power lecture about how lives or careers or futures are jeopardized by a single embarrassing photo posted to a platform….

A privacy regulator in Europe told me the other day that he thought it was a data protection violation for anyone to post a photo online if it captured someone’s face or property without their consent. I asked him whether he thought this restricted the right to freedom of expression. He didn’t seem to understand the question.

The right to privacy and the right to free expression are both important rights — and they’re certainly ones that can, conceivably, conflict. This is one case where figuring out where the line is drawn is important, and the lack of anyone fighting for freedom of expression in Europe suggests that only one side of the debate is being heard there.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The record labels have been trying out all sorts of schemes for a while now to try to get ISPs over to its side in propping up their old business models, and the latest is pretty laughable. BPI at the behest of Universal Music, commissioned a study which suggests that ISPs can make a lot of money by offering music services to their users. No doubt. But that leaves out some rather pertinent details. For example: many ISPs have very much wanted to offer such music services, but have been blocked by the likes of (uh oh…) Universal Music and BPI. Funny how that works.

The problem, of course, is that the ISPs want to offer music services that people would actually use, and the record labels want to handicap the services to the point at which they’re completely lame. So there’s a bit of a stalemate there.

But the bigger issue is (reading between the lines here) what the record labels are really saying to ISPs here is: break net neutrality. That’s because they’re not talking about just any music service. After all, there are lots of music services out there that people can sign up for no matter who their ISP is. But what the labels seems to be suggesting here is that ISPs specify one special music service that locks in customers. That’s why the report highlights that a music service can “reduce churn.” Of course, the only way it does that is if it’s locked to that single ISP — and if your music is limited to you only as long as you’re with that ISP. In other words: locking it down so that it’s lame.

As if to make the point even stronger, though, BPI blatantly tells ISPs to break neutrality:

“It’s increasingly clear that it isn’t smart to be a ‘dumb pipe’. This report shows that the revenue potential of digital music services alone makes sound economic sense for ISPs,” said BPI Chief Executive, Geoff Taylor.

Being a “dumb pipe” of course is a well-known code-word in the internet world for a neutral network. So, really what the labels seem to be suggesting here is that ISPs break network neutrality for the purpose of serving up a preferred music service that locks you into that ISP. Apparently, no one who put together the study contemplated the fact that this might piss people off and make them look for ISPs that don’t lock them in. Thankfully, it appears that some ISPs aren’t biting:

“TalkTalk thanks the BPI for its strategic business advice. Though some may question the value of such insight from an industry which has failed to acknowledge the impact of new technology on its own business models and is pressing the Government to criminalise its biggest customers,” a spokesperson told TorrentFreak.

Exactly. If the record labels were really serious about helping ISPs offer up music services, they wouldn’t be blocking them at every turn. This report is a typical red herring.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A series of stories from Jamie Love at KEI highlight the troubling cozy relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the US government in trying to raise drug prices in other countries — which very likely will come at the expense of the health of citizens in those countries. The first is about the USTR and its position that drugs in Taiwan are too cheap:

The United States has also continued to engage Taiwan on concerns raised by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries that Taiwan’s procedures for medical product pricing and reimbursement fail to adequately recognize the value of innovative medical products for patients in Taiwan.

Read that again, because that’s a pretty scary statement. Yes, Taiwan has worked hard to make sure that health care is affordable in that country, and the USTR is acting on behalf of corporate interests to tell them that’s a mistake. Wow.

Then, over in India, it appears that the USPTO is putting on co-branded events with Pfizer about drugs, health care and patents. Along with this, Love points to growing concerns from folks in India about a project between George Washington University and various pharmaceutical companies to “train” Indian politicians and judges on the importance of patents in pharma. Except, of course, that’s very much in dispute. Many studies have shown that patents on pharma do more harm than good — especially in countries with big healthcare issues.

There are plenty of important issues to debate over health care and patents, but it seems quite troubling when the US seems to have pretty much let the pharmaceutical companies run the entire debate.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

In heated war with rival Gowalla for the geek seal of approval at the annual digital culture festival, Foursquare unveils new badges, new partners, and new promotions.

Originally posted at The Social