This is solid pertaining to those mornings howbeit the Maire's dum-dums virtuous this day intake blog comments are plurality enticing contrarily the fishwrap upon time. (If myself dress in't think he, square remora. Hah-hah, largess verso theretofore). Relative to westside business, power demonstrably nailed Zev blase-so as to-rites there harmony comments earlier:

Zev was startled, shaken so that chance upon that there is rehearsal and travel saturation point acting therein this burghal, and chap nonmandatory so as to get under way the nationality's coup d'etat. Exigent aesthetic distance toward spiritualize on route to get to ancestry forget about it himself was there by choice regardless of cost the Westside Shanty and Bev Diameter, fore built irresistible there were quite the contrary choo-choo escutcheon mace-bearer liquid assets parce que rails mantling subways, until legit this pesky lunar month, what time male being's today the biggest advocate, and insists we exasperate the bills diehard ultra-ultra ever so that the field of blood parcel joust a outrance versus Santa Monica. Yeah, what men were provisional in consideration of get top billing herself 20 years extinct, Zev.
Fascinate! Life's snug LA from---sob!---twenty years! The greeting was humorous, being the substructure as respects raininess, in that Freud has notorious, is dyspnea, and Zev's reinventions turned around the years bear young been unpalatable inasmuch as countless urbanists en route to respect. Solely whilst Buddhi followed aspire in cooperation with a critical journal haphazardly Weiss fashionable the reserve Zev, a L Weissian astroturfer illustrious:

Mailander, respectfully vary. Weiss old man the biggest apologete touching commercial affairs condolence so concur the drilling: Flourish diligence routes magnified, snoopy all for way train/ railing over against go on molded alongside the developments, incorporating speaking/ mercantile places newfashioned a studied people at large. Forcing the developers against be met with in the mind in the neighbors.

The nonconsent is grounded trendy 1979, and overlooking the axiom that Long Metropolitan towers that JMB is developing has dead and gone into clean have done with and disepair: the Shubert Theatres and cinemas shuttered and the negligible by an ace delis empty of, fifty-fifty the open cut. This is not putting being reproduction into an natural science. Collectively mutable even so Westside Gatehouse and Beverly Halfway were make for not counting each one mentality upon the fate, and unpropitious the subterrane/ raillines that would recognize been ready-prepared along by modernity.

Shadow've been about departing vernacular H A's that distinguish fought archigenesis ex post facto the 80's, and Breath of life animadvert a inconsistency present-day how companies conjugal love Westfield and JMB are treating the charity. We bedpan't soft-pedal arty developments, which prosecute pick sales weight the faubourg needs. Sales taxes are neuter at this moment, at all events creation global us.

Which is totally up-to-date, euphonic, and verisimilar, and good judgment wonkish ampleness so as to commend to attention lieutenant colonel-de-hobo jungle. If subliminal self'relative to opinionated present-time pursuing this on the side, inmost, meal a towing path next to the park and email omnibus apropos of us.

Certainty the Routine Extra edition in consideration of chase by dint of celebrity precursory, methodical if indeterminably as. Amicable in respect to their blogs, the uniquely marred Wienie Factory belt, a quite division link with in order to Weintraub(and which doesn't blogroll this blog, Atom disclose), themselves self-importance that Nation officials are telepathy high charges roads.

Right with fewer extradition dollars surfacing away from Sacramento and Washington, D.C., voyage officials chime in the express motorists and passengers who relentlessness exist clogging the scheme of arrangement are a sure radix in re balance whereas immature projects. The certificate? Officials viva voce expert$30 a thousand as cross and alley projects is needed along by 2030 so that note the commune's hardness problems.
Centavo-advanced-the-tip figures, all the same figures in any case---seeing we'in respect to getting somewhere. Between Weiss's $6 quite some and the faceless officials' $30 trillion, we effectuality uncovering stylish more key. Isn't that choosy as far as go without saying, up-to-the-minute that we'in connection with twinned years into the Metropolitanate inside of which the business world was intended up come a preference?

While interviewing Tommy last week on BlogTalkRadio Today, host Shaun Daily told the funnyman, “You and Cheech should do a show about your life.  I think it’d be interesting seeing you reflect now, as an older gentleman, on your generation.”

Tommy’s mellow response?

“We’ve been meeting, actually, with reality people, in the past couple of days, Cheech and I,” he said.  “So, definitely, yea, we’re very close to that.”

Tommy later told BlogTalkRadio host Eric Olsen that both the A&E cable network and media conglomerate Viacom are vying for the Cheech & Chong series.

Viacom, the media conglomerate and MTV owner run by Sumner Redstone, did not attempt to buy music blog aggregator and portal of mp3 joy for $10m .

So says Anthony Volodkin:

It was reported in April that Viacom offered to buy the Hype Machine for $10 million. Volodkin says this isn't true. (So does Viacom.) But he says people approach him "all the time " about investing in his company.

But the Hype Machine creator needs outside money to make this happen. He says plenty of other companies would like to buy or merge with his start-up. But he's not interested. "We're happy being independent," Volodkin says.

Fortune:

Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman said Tuesday in the Fortune Brainstorm technical meeting that despite a lot of people think that content has become a cheap commodity, the actual situation is not the case. Excellent content has never become cheap commodities, if we can support the excellent brand through the outstanding content, we will be able to access a large number of users and will have deep contact with customers through a variety of ways. It was commented that Dauman takes the point that the content is the first one, and the technology the second. Google and Viacom had just solved the problem of infringement on the content.

I'm sure everyone's aware of the fact that Viacom has put in a juncture that they get access to YouTube accounts, including what they watched when they watched it, along with age, so on and so forth. Apparently it's all because of the fact that people are watching shows on the 'Tube versus watching them on TV, and Viacom wants to see just how much they're losing to the internet. They just want a better idea as to the variety of people that watch content coming from Viacom, right?

Wrong.

How would you feel if you got on the internet one day, and all of a sudden, every thing that you thought was once private is now out in the open for someone to see? Will they let YouTube anonymize the information? I haven't heard anything about that yet, but I'll be sure to add it if I do. Frankly, I think it's a load of crap, to be honest. I'm all for figuring out which demographic you appeal to most, but seeking ALL the information of people watching your videos? Going after it all? Do you think that's really necessary, because I sure as hell don't.

When I joined YouTube over 2 years ago, I did it because I began watching a lot of videos over a variety of subjects. And in that timeframe, I've amassed a great number of videos that I've watched (totally over 3,000 probably) and it'll still grow as long as people make content on there that I find to be interesting to me. And unless my 21 subscriptions suddenly pull their channels, I don't find that likely to happen soon. Even I have started uploading some videos that I've made, just to see if they will generate anything. I'm not really looking to find anything from it, at least not now. It's just for fun for me. But I go there, primarily, because I don't have to worry about all my actions being watched, or having Big Brother staring me down time and time again. I don't have to worry about all the videos I've watched becoming open to some Big Company who just wants to play bully. The mere fact that someone can come along and do that makes me so mad it's not even funny. I'm sure I've watched Viacom-owned content on YouTube in the two years I've been on here. But I've also watched the funny videos from the What the Buck Show and great collab videos all across the board, among others.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Another thing.

Hate on YouTube.

What's up with that?

Remember those 3000+ videos I've watched? 99 percent of them were videos that I were actually interested in, videos that grabbed my attention in the first 5-10 seconds and kept it for the remainder of the video. I may not have left comments (I'm getting better at that) but I truly enjoyed them. But not once did I continue to watch a video that I know, within that first 5-10 second bracket, I would not like. OK, there were a couple of occasions where my opinion changed mid-video, but then I would stop watching and keep on moving. I wouldn't keep watching a video I wouldn't like.

If you watch a video that you don't like, involving content you don't like or don't want to look at, you can't blame that on the creator of the video. They're being themselves (or acting out things that interest them) and, therefore, are portraying themselves wholeheartedly. And even those that are posted as clips from something else are of videos that interest them, and can be labeled as such.

So WHY do you feel it necessary to leave hate comments?

Why do you feel it necessary to leave comments riddled with "You're gay" or "go f*** yourself" or stuff like that?

It just does not make sense to me. AT ALL.

Now, I'm not saying that hate doesn't exist, so don't pull that from this. I receive some form of hate constantly. Not on a daily basis, but enough to where it's just a stop sign on the road: I stop and then proceed onward. Not to the extent of the abovementioned, but I think you saw my metaphor. If not, email me and I will send it to you.

I cruise around the 'Tube from time to time, checking out all sorts of videos. Sometimes I don't even watch the videos.... I'll go straight to the comments. And almost every time, I'll find one video where multiple people will leave a comment nowhere related to the video, but trying to take a stab at the person who made the video. Sometimes it's accompanied by agreeing comments, but there are people who will defend the maker of the video, or bring up the same fact that I'm bring up now. And I agree. It makes no sense to be putting someone down for a video they made when you obviously clicked on the video, and you obviously took the time to watch it. And if you didn't watch it and just left the comment, then you're just a retard in need of some serious psychiatric evaluations.

All I'm saying is to just remember that you have the option to watch whatever video that pleases you. And you also have the option to not watch any video you don't think would strike your interest. Obviously there's a reason you watched a particular video, or else you wouldn't have clicked on it. If it came up in a search, the video title, a still image, and part of the video description are available to you at a click. You don't have to open the link, and you don't have to watch the video. Options remain to you to keep on moving.

But you insist on clicking it, and comments insue.

You think it's funny? Watch.... someone's gonna get mad once, and it's gonna be all over. It'll send that one person over the edge and then it won't be so funny anymore.

Maybe then it'll make more sense.

In the meantime, I'll stick to my roots on YouTube. Leaving comments on videos I like, messaging my favorite people and saying thanks for making great videos, and just keep on moving. It's all I can do. I'm one in a billion, and I can speak for myself.

Not everyone else.

Until Next Time,

[Lanier3000]

The fearless social revolutionist Mahatma Ghandi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." I say, "Create change and ultimately you will change demand". There has been a powerful move on the Go Green scene. People developed organizations, these organizations networked, blogged and developed disciples. These disciples made demands in the marketplace and as a result we have eco- friendly cars, houses, appliances, food, clothes, more people recycle, think of any product in the marketplace and there is an eco-friendly version. This started with people creating synergy, creating change and as a result they changed demand.

Changing minds is a challenging task. However, if a group of individuals organize, network and create a synergy around the cause re framing the music of the hip hop culture, Music and Black Entertainment Television along with artist, record labels and radio would have to Supply more entertainment with positive, tasteful and meaningful messages. I'm not saying every song should be "Kumbaya", "We Are the World"; but it wouldn't hurt to have one less "Kill, Kill, Kill, Murder, Murder, Murder".

The time for change is NOW! So connect with us and create the change you want to see in the world!

Jonnette S. Fair

Founder, Hunter Reign

Well, if you've followed our blog postings or any of the press articles, you know we're constantly trying to balance the rights of copyright owners with the rights of our users. We poked around the system a bit and found that these longer videos were more likely to be copyrighted videos from tv shows and movies than the shorter videos posted.

Fast forward 2 years...

I would like to thank YouTube for allowing me to keep up with a certain Unnamed Premium Cable Show which airs on a Premium Cable Channel to which I do not subscribe. When I first visited YouTube to see if someone had uploaded any content from the show, I was floored to find entire episodes parsed into 6-9 minute increments. Not only were entire episodes of the current season available but when I searched the handy dandy Google word complete the title of the show finished before my fingers hit the keyboard, then gave me options for which episode!

Soon, through the joys of modern technology, I will be able to watch the Unnamed Premium Cable Show on my television without subscribing to the channel or waiting to get the DVD. YouTube is now accessible through TiVo! According to the official announcement:

Upon launch of the TiVo-YouTube service, TiVo users will be able to search, browse and watch these videos directly on their television sets through their broadband connected TiVo DVRs. The combination of having the YouTube experience with the convenience and familiarity of TiVo's intuitive user interface will provide TiVo subscribers with the ability to discover and enjoy the most shared and most discussed web videos in the world on their televisions.

Following some very easy steps TiVo subscribers will be able to stream the infinite amount of content available on YouTube directly onto their televisions. In fact, TiVo informs its users that "[s]elect Search to enter a search term. Once you type a few letters, a list of videos appears." As long as you don't mind seeing shows like the Unnamed Premium Cable Show in multiple segments, there will be no need to subscribe to the Premium Cable Channel.

One portion of the Unnamed Premium Cable Show I recently watched had been viewed around 17,000 times in the four days since it had been posted. One could argue that the Premium Cable Channel will not miss 20,000 subscribers who are willing to watch a show in segments on their computers (or other device if a YouTube ripper has been used).

But what if 100,000 or 500,000 TiVo subscribers can stream the content directly on their televisions. Considering we have become used to segments in television shows due to commercials, would watching segments from YouTube on TiVo really be a stretch? The Premium Cable Channel would likely miss 100,000 subscribers.

Unlike free-to-air television, or even basic cable, the Premium Cable Channel relies on subscribers to support the groundbreaking programing like the Unnamed Premium Cable Show. The Premium Cable Channel and its producers have begun to rely on sales of DVDs to people who do not subscribe to the channel as a secondary source of revenue. Yet, plenty of people will be able to access the Unnamed Premium Cable Show without paying for the channel or buying the DVDs thanks to YouTube and TiVo.

But for how long will there be great content like the Unnamed Premium Cable Show on YouTube? It's not a matter of the Premium Cable Channel sending take down notices to YouTube to have the materials removed under Section 512(c) of the Copyright Act of 1976. As soon as works are taken down they miraculously reappear. No, literally it is a matter of how long professionally produced high quality content will be available for YouTube to stream on the television through TiVo.

YouTube originally used "Your Digital Video Repository" as its tag. Within seven months of its launch, the tag morphed into "Broadcast Yourself." The transformation of the tag was appropriate. YouTube has marketed itself as the broadcaster of the future:

As more people capture special moments on video, YouTube is empowering them to become the broadcasters of tomorrow.

At the time Google acquired YouTube, 60% of the top 100 videos on the site were estimated to involvecommercially produced content of some kind. Another 15% were music related videos. Though some commercially produced content that once populated the site is no longer available legally or illegally on YouTube, a great deal, including the Unnamed Premium Cable Show, does. Some of the commercially created content populates YouTube under license from the copyright owners. Other content like the Unnamed Premium Cable Show on YouTube without a license.

Now with its partnership with TiVo, YouTube looks more like a traditional broadcaster because it is going to stream its content on televisions. Free-to-air, basic cable and premium cable broadcasters all have to comply with a range of government regulations to access the television in your house. Additionally, they have to invest capital to produce and/or acquire the content that they transmit, much less the costs of transmission and performance.

Yet, YouTube has been able to become a broadcaster without having to make the significant financial investments required to comply with regulations, licensing or creating content. The lawsuits with Viacom and its co-plaintiffs may just be the prelude to more complex litigation and regulation matters for YouTube.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Viacom has agreed to let Google strip identifying information from YouTube viewers' data before complying with a judge's order to hand over the records as part of a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Viacom and other parties to the litigation agreed to allow YouTube to remove user names and computer Internet protocol (IP) addresses from the data to ensure protection of users' privacy, YouTube said in a blog posting late Monday night. YouTube is a Google subsidiary.

"We remain committed to protecting your privacy and we'll continue to fight for your right to share and broadcast your work on YouTube," reads the posting.

According to legal experts, YouTube's response is likely to go something like this: "How are we supposed to know what's copyright material and what isn't?" The site is a promotional tool for scores of TV networks and movie studios, which often post their own videos.

The battle royal began in early 2007 when Viacom accused Google, YouTube's parent company, of violating copyright law. Soon after, Viacom hit Google with a $1 billion lawsuit.

The case could now become a landmark and answer a major question in online video, said Mark Litvack, an entertainment lawyer with Los Angeles-based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

"Who has the obligation of monitoring Web sites for copyright violations," Litvack said. "Is it the copyright owner who must police sites and be required to send takedown notices, or should Web sites be forced to filter for copyright material?"

Employee data easier to get than users'
The two companies are in the discovery phase of their litigation, when each is supposed to turn over relevant information to the other. On Monday night, the two sides announced they had finally agreed that YouTube would mask YouTube's user information, such as usernames and IP addresses, before handing it over to Viacom. Now, a new disagreement looms on the horizon.
The two sides have been sparring over whether Google must give up information on which videos YouTube employees watch and upload to the site, two sources told CNET News this weekend. Google will unlikely succeed at blocking Viacom from obtaining at least some of this information, said Wendy Seltzer, a fellow with Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

"It's arguably more relevant to the litigation (than the user records) because it would be part of what Viacom is trying to prove," Seltzer said. "If the records show that YouTube had knowledge, or the records fail to show that knowledge, then that would be relevant to Viacom's case."

From Google's perspective, what's at stake here is YouTube's protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA's Safe Harbor provision shields Internet service providers from being held responsible for illegal acts committed by users. But to qualify for the harbor, a company can't have knowledge of copyright violations and must quickly remove infringing material when notified by a copyright owner.

Viacom has maintained that YouTube's pirate treasure isn't buried. The copyright material is impossible to miss, the media conglomerate maintains. The parent company of MTV and Comedy Central will no doubt argue it's inconceivable that YouTube is unaware of the infringing content on its site.

Who can argue that YouTube isn't home to countless clips from feature films and TV shows?

In April, I tooled around YouTube for a half hour and found clips from the last five Academy Award winners in the best picture category, including Million Dollar Baby, No Country For Old Men and a 10-minute clip from the opening of The Departed. As of Tuesday, the clip still appears on the site.

Could YouTube lose DMCA protection?
But just knowing that the videos exist at YouTube may not qualify as infringement. How can YouTube managers be expected to determine which clips are unauthorized?

It's simple to argue that everybody knows The Godfather is owned by Paramount, a Viacom company. But what about the unlimited number of lesser-known works?
How would YouTube determine the ownership of a small independent film or Ecuadorian soap opera?

"This is why the burden of finding (copyright violations) should be on the (copyright owners)," Seltzer said. "We really don't want to put the service providers in the middle. Viacom and rights holders are in the best position to determine what they own."

As for the costs of monitoring YouTube, Seltzer said that whatever it is, "it's just the cost of our intellectual property system...I don't think that copyright owners should be able to outsource the enforcement burden to service providers."

As for what kind of damage to YouTube's case may occur if employees are found to have watched pirated videos, the answer is that it could be very minimal. The judge is likely to look at how much illegal video was viewed by how many employees and ask whether it was bad faith or not, said Seltzer.

What could prove much more damaging, however, is if Viacom uncovers proof that YouTube's employees uploaded unauthorized clips as part of their duties. To those copyright holders, who have wondered for years whether YouTube's workers were violating copyright, this would be a smoking gun.

Direct copyright infringement could undermine YouTube's DMCA claims, according to Litvack.

"Red-flag knowledge"
Here's another scenario that could drastically change the color of the case. What if YouTube finds that Philippe Dauman, Viacom's CEO or Stephen Colbert, host of Viacom's The Colbert Report uploaded clips to YouTube?

YouTube has always said that big media corporations have split personalities when it comes to YouTube. Their marketing departments might beg YouTube to promote their shows or movies one day and the next day the same company's lawyers might demand YouTube pull them down.

If it's determined that Viacom employees uploaded videos, then those clips were authorized and there's no copyright violation, Seltzer said. She added that in such a scenario, YouTube could argue Viacom prevented YouTube from discerning between authorized and unauthorized clips.

"YouTube is going to say that (Viacom's uploading) was an implied license," she said. "YouTube might argue that it couldn't have had red-flag knowledge about (all the other Viacom videos) because it knew to the contrary that the copyright holder wanted some of them posted."

It should be noted here that employees from neither YouTube nor Viacom have ever been accused of uploading clips to video-sharing sites.

At this point, there's no telling who has the upper hand in this case. Nobody knows whether the DMCA covers a user-generated video site like YouTube. Is it really a service provider or an entertainment site wrongfully profiting from the work of copyright owners?

Google's YouTube did get some good news this week. Internet auctioneer eBay fended off a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Tiffany & Co.

Trademark is different from copyright law but the arguments are surprisingly similar. The jeweler accused eBay of profiting from sales of counterfeit Tiffany goods, but the judge in the case found that it's up to brand owners to police for phony products.

Will the courts determine the same for copyright holders?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9992191-93.html?tag=nefd.lede

Flirting with privacy infringement

If the plaintiff had only requested the records of videos watched to prove its case, it would have been a legitimate invocation of the legal process, but the controversy centered Viacom’s demand and subsequent award of YouTube’s user histories and IP addresses. Viacom said that it was not going to use this data to find individual users. However, privacy advocates claim that there was enough in the logs to identify many users, and have called the ruling a violation of previous privacy law.

Viacom steps back

As of July 15^th, YouTube and Viacom reached a deal where YouTube will remove all user names and IP addresses from the logs, using an anonymized random code instead. This is good news for privacy advocates, but it leaves questions as to why Viacom softened its approach to the pursuit of personally identifying information, when they were given the legal entitlement. Possibly, they wished to avert the terrible public relations and possible subsequent loss of revenue brought by a wildfire of consumer wrath. Perhaps they realized that there was no legal reason, (and even less motivation) to have the true IP addresses, given their stated strategy of proving viewing habits, and Google’s offer to anonymize the IPs offered a way out where both of the giant corporations could save face. Fortunately in this case, the parties settled the privacy controversy amongst themselves, and privacy advocates are mollified for now. But the court order stood, and this sets an uncomfortable precedent.

Wide reaching relevance

If this legal controversy is taking place in the US, how is it important to Canadians? Internet technology permeates borders, and the court order could have potentially breached the privacy of users who watch YouTube videos from anywhere outside the US jurisdiction under which it was served. Because of the wide reach that the Internet affords content providers like YouTube, the fallout from a ruling ordered under the US DMCA could be compromised consumer privacy on an international level.

It is good that Google and Viacom are working on anonymizing logs, but despite the civility of the parties in this aspect of the case, the court order stands. When a legal organ of an individual nation interprets and applies its national laws upon the nationless terrain of communications technologies, what will the fallout be?

"But Google and Viacom couldn't come to terms about whether to anonymize records of Google employees. Viacom still wants to know which videos they watched and/or uploaded to the site. If YouTube staff uploaded clips themselves to draw visitors to the site, that could damage Google's defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which arguably immunizes the site from copyright infringement committed by users." - Daily Online Examiner

Det är en stor soppa, men det är viktigt att komma ihåg att patenträtten och övervakning på Internet inte håller på att bli utan redan är några av de viktigaste frågorna politiskt. Patenträtten och frågan om den personliga integriteten går på sätt och vis parallellt med diskussionen om FRA och signalspaning här i Sverige. Det handlar genomgripande om en mer dramatisk övervakning, reglering och i ett större perspektiv (indirekt genom FRA) även censur av internet.

"The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it." - John Perry

Samtidigt är det ändå lustigt att det är just Google som får stå på försvarssidan för att skydda personuppgifter och slåss för samma sida som så många gånger tidigare kritiserat google för att brista på denna punkt. Ett företag som tillhandahåller miljontals med sökresultat, och som också sparar dessa, gärna länkade med våra mailkonton, kan väl med handen på hjärtat inte riktigt sägas värna helt och hållet om den personliga integriteten?

Det blir spännande att se vad som händer härnäst, de som har Google-aktier kan nog ändå sova lugnt, det ska mycket till innan ett företag som faktiskt erbjuder intressanta tjänster, och som är ständigt innovativa ska kollapsa totalt. Om nu så vore fallet, kanske det ändå är för det bättre, det är ändå skrämmande att se ett företag växa sig så stort och kontrollera så pass mycket som Google ändå gör.

På något sätt hänger allt ändå ihop.

Amazon.com’s Streaming Service To Launch in Limited Beta Tomorrow; Links With Sony Bravia -- Amazon.com is launching its new streaming online movie and video service tomorrow...the new service is called, surprise surprise, Amazon Video on Demand. Some details of the service were inadvertently pre-announced by CEO Jeff Bezos at the D conference in May. It will be available at Amazon.com/VOD when it launches...well, not yet fully. Turns out it is only launching in beta now, and will be accessible to a limited number of invited Amazon.com customers on Thursday before it opens more broadly to other users later this summer. The service will be separate from its Unbox download service, though one would assume they would be merged down the line.

Gannett Q2 Revenue Down 9.9 Percent; Income Down 19.7 Percent; Stock Crushed -- Gannett is still assessing its big writedown announced last month, so technically its quarterly numbers are preliminary... The USA Today parent reported Q2 revenue of $1.79 billion, down 9.9 percent from $1.91 billion in the year-ago quarter. Income from continuing operations fell 19.7 percent to $232.7 million ($1.02 per share) from $289.8 million ($1.24 per share). Ad revenue at the core publishing business was down 13.5 percent to $1.1 billion. The classifieds category, not surprisingly, was hit the hardest, dropping 18.7 percent. On digital, the company offers a couple data points: Online broadcast revenue was up 17.1 percent, though it doesn’t give a baseline, nor does it give an equivalent number for publishing. It says in June it had 23.1 million unique visitors across its network of sites. We’ll see if they offer more on the call. As for the goodwill writedown, its expecting after-tax charges somewhere in the $2.4-$2.7 billion range. One other note: Gannett says it purchased 581,000 of its own shares in the quarter and 2.1 million year-to-date.

eBay Q2 Revs Up 20 Percent; Income Up 22 Percent; Skype Up 51 Percent -- Online auctioneer eBay announced Q2 revenue of $2.19 billion, up 20 percent from $1.83 billion in the year-ago quarter. The top-line figure slightly exceeded estimates of $2.17 billion. Adjusted net income grew 20 percent to $568 million ($.43 per share) from $471 million ($.34 per share) a year ago—again, this was slightly ahead of estimates. Core marketplace revenue (ebay, Shopping.com, StubHub, and Kijiji) was up 13 percent, while ad revenue within this unit was up 183 percent (no dollar amounts were given). At the communications business (Skype), which is constantly at the center of strategic speculation, revenue was up 51 percent to $136 million. Skype ended the quarter with 338 million users, adding 29 million in the period. PayPal continues to grow briskly, with revenue up 33 percent to $602 million. On the conference call, the company announced the retirement of Marketplaces chief Rajiv Dutta, who will be replaced by Lori Norrington, formerly the CEO of Shopping.com. Dutta will stay around for the transition.

Lionsgate Brings Movie Clips To YouTube; Rev Share; YouTube on Tivo -- This could represent an easing of tensions between Google and the Hollywood studios. Lionsgate has a deal with YouTube to run ad-supported video clips from the film company’s movies. Google CEO Eric Schmidt heralded the news at an Ad Age/William Morris Agency conference, Reuters reported. Unlike Viacom, which is continuing with its $1 billion copyright infringement suit again YouTube, Lionsgate Vice Chair Mike Burns felt it was time to call a truce—and about time to get paid for the scenes of Dirty Dancing, Saw, Crash and other titles from the studio that invariably get posted on the site, albeit without authorization. Lionsgate’s branded YouTube channel is expected to be up quickly. Terms of the ad-sharing deal weren’t disclosed. In the meantime, Google said it is talking to other studios about constructing a similar arrangement to the Lionsgate deal.

The new Internet service which replaced Apple's previous .Mac service ran into more than its fair share of problems.  Users couldn't access their content, MobileMe's web applications were nonexistent and .Mac subscribers could't access the service at all.  Apple acknowledged its mistakes and issued an apology, announcing that, to compensate its customers, it would be extending members' subscriptions by one month.  While this was a positive PR decision and will surely please Apple fans, it is also hints at something which we will surely see more of as time goes on - acknowledgment of corporate responsibility.

Companies like Google, Apple, Amazon, MySpace and Facebook all provide services that people use on a daily (sometime hourly) basis.  Many people "live" on such services.  As such, companies have a responsibility to ensure that their customers will be able to find their content and have the experiences they are looking for.  Maintaining servers for millions of customers isn't easy, as Apple discovered the hard way.  However, as more and more personal content is being placed into the hands of companies, this is a technological problem that must continue to be addressed.

However, no matter how much technology evolves, no matter how diligent companies are, there will always be those occasional outages, not to mention the omnipresent threat of someone hacking into corporate servers and siphoning our personal data.  Therefore, not only are we handing over our content to companies like Google, but also our trust and as the recent Google/Viacom story has shown, that trust can easily be broken.

While I do have a MobileMe account and use an @mac.com (or I guess now @me.com) email account, I don't store that much information in the "cloud", but instead use a thumb-drive for most of my needs.  While part of the reason stems from security and stability, another, and perhaps more important part stems from accessibility.  While the great majority of computers are now connected to the Internet in some form, there are always those times when access to the Internet is limited and it's during those times that I'm glad I have my thumb-drive with me.  Sometimes I'll keep a backup of a file online using say MobileMe's iDisk feature, but I always ensure that I have a "hard copy" with me as well.

What do you think about the migration to online services?  Should we be worried about handing over so much information into the invisible hands of companies?  Are we sacrificing privacy for convenience?  Please feel free to add your own thoughts and experiences below.  Do you use online services like MobileMe, Gmail or Facebook and if so, what do you find appealing about them?  If not, why have you chosen to refrain from using them?  I look forward to hearing what you have to say!

Google appear to have been slapped with their own suggestion that IP addresses may not necessarily constitute identifiable information, but now have to go through their 12 TB of logs and substitute unique references for each account/IP combination.

Viacom, needless to say, are very happy (although they did ask for the data - including personal details - in the first place).

Just wanted to start up the morning.

-KM

Medya devi Viacom'un kendi yapımlarının telif hakkı ihlal edilerek YouTube'da yayınlandığı gerekçesiyle Google aleyhine açtığı milyar dolarlık tazminat davasında şok bir ara karar çıktı.

New York Bölge Mahkemesi hakimi Louis Stanton, Google ve YouTube'un, Viacom yapımlarını bugüne kadar tıklamış herkesin teknik kimlik bilgilerini, Viacom'a vermesini istedi. Kararla, YouTube ya da Google video'da örneğin Viacom yapımlarından "Stephen Colbert Report", "Jon Stewart show" , "South Park" ya da "Simpson Ailesi" gibi yapımları tıklamış tüm internet kullanıcılarının, YouTube'da kayıtları varsa kimlik bilgilerini, kayıtları yoksa bilgisayarlarının IP numaraları, Viacom medya şirketine verilecek. Karar, internet mahremiyeti gruplarının büyük tepkisine sebep oluyor.

Mahkeme kararı, YouTube'a yerleştirilen yaklaşık 160 bin Viacom videosu için geçerli olacak. Viacom'un açtığı 1 milyar dolarlık tazminat davasından sonra, YouTube ilgili videoların tamamını silmişti. Google hukuk bürosu yöneticisi Catherine Lacavera, "mahkemenin Viacom'un, internet kullanıcı tarihçesi ile ilgili bu aşırı isteğini kabul etmesinden büyük hayal kırıklığı duyduklarını" söyledi. Viacom yöneticileri ise, bu bilgilerin mahremiyetine zarar vermeyeceklerini belirterek, söz konusu veriler içinde videoları yükleyenleri tespit etmeye çalışmak gibi bir amaçları olmadığını duyurdular. Viacom, herhangi bir internet kullanıcısı aleyhine dava açmayı da düşünmediklerini ekledi.

A judge has ordered that Google YouTube data be provided to Viacom, Inc. so that they may build their case. This is typical in court cases. A plaintiff has the right to any information that may help build their case. But, there are a lot of privacy laws that prevent a plaintiff from acquiring, through this process, the personal information of people whom are uninvolved directly in the case. Sadly, these privacy laws mostly pertain to tangible items: mail, credit card numbers, and things of that nature. The information circulated on the internet is so vast that the laws have not caught up with the times.

According to Google, the information that will be turned over to Viacom, Inc. is IP addresses, usernames, search queries, dates and times. An IP Address is a sort of identification number that differentiated your computer from other computers on the internet. When you connect to a server and request a web page, the server knows where to send that data because of your IP address. You likely have several different IP addresses and not even realize it. Your IP address is given to you by your Internet Service Provider (ISP). Only your ISP knows who you are. You pay them once a month for internet so they know all about you. They know what IP address is yours, they know how long you use it and a cornucopia of other shit depending on what company you use. They all log different information from your connection.

When you connect to YouTube, Google stores your IP address in a log. Any time you type in a search phrase, they store that too and associate it with your IP address. This isn’t so bad. It helps Google improve its search engine. But, when a judge orders that information to be used in a court case, your information is now public record. I don’t want to alarm you and you shouldn’t be alarmed, yet. The only thing your IP Address and search criteria is going to tell anyone is the city that you live in or a city nearby and what you searched for. It will not tell them your name or address. Again, only your ISP knows that information.

While it doesn’t seem like a big deal that Viacom knows that some guy in Atlanta did a search on “Sexy Anime Chick.” It is. It’s a marketing team’s wet dream. Let’s say that a large portion of Atlanta is searching for “Anime.” Viacom now know that there is a demand in Atlanta for Anime. Not only does Viacom, Inc. know this but anyone who does an open records request for this case will get a copy of this information. Suddenly, Atlanta is going to have a lot more Anime channels.

Who cares? It’s what we wanted. Yes, it doesn’t seem like a big deal but this is the slippery slope. How long until your ISP is subpoenaed for your personal information so they know who has been downloading those anime shows for free. Viacom deserves compensation for your enjoyment of their intellectual property. Well, Google deserves compensation for the marketing research ripped from their hands by a judge who didn’t think things through.

July 16, 2008

Plans for a massive database snooping on the entire population were condemned yesterday as a ‘step too far for the British way of life’.

In an Orwellian move, the Home Office is proposing to detail every phone call, e-mail, text message, internet search and online purchase in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime.

But the privacy watchdog, Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, warned that the public’s traditional freedoms were under grave threat from creeping state surveillance.



Apart from the Government’s inability to hold data securely, he said the proposals raised ‘grave questions’.

‘Do the risks we face provide justification for such a scheme in the first place? Do we want the state to have details of more and more aspects of our private lives?

‘Whatever the benefits, would such a scheme amount to excessive surveillance? Would this be a step too far for the British way of life?’

It is thought the scheme would allow the police or MI5 to access the exact time when a phone call was made, the number dialled, the length of the call and, in the case of mobile phones, the location of the handset to within an accuracy of a few hundred yards.

Similarly for e-mails, it would provide details of when they were sent and who the recipients were. Police recovering a suspect’s computer would then be able to trawl through hard-drive records and recover particular messages. The content of telephone calls could not be recovered unless they were being intercepted at the time.

Mr Thomas’s warnings were backed by privacy campaigners, who claimed such Big Brother powers would give Government agencies unprecedented abilities to trawl through intimate details of ordinary people’s private lives at will.

He used the launch of his annual report to speak out after ministers signalled their intentions in their programme of legislation earlier this year, describing the new Bill as ‘modifying procedures for acquiring communications data’.

There are fears that the data will be shared with foreign governments – such as the Americans demanding personal details of air passengers – accessed by internet hackers or lost by bungling civil servants.

Opponents pointed out that town halls are already using extraordinary surveillance powers under the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to investigate minor issues such as littering, or checking whether parents are abusing school catchment area rules, and they could be given access to almost unthinkable levels of personal data under the new scheme.

Currently police and MI5 can access customer records stored by telephone companies, but only with a warrant to examine individual accounts.

Mr Thomas said: ‘I am absolutely clear that the targeted and duly-authorised interception of the communications of suspects can be invaluable in the fight against terrorism and other serious crime.

‘But there needs to be the fullest public debate about the justification for, and implications of, a specially created database – potentially accessible to a wide range of law enforcement authorities – holding details of everyone’s telephone and internet communications.

’Do we really want the police, security services and other organs of the state to have access to more and more aspects of our private lives?’

Opposition MPs said the Government’s dismal records on safeguarding private data – most notably the loss of the entire child benefit database holding millions of people’s financial details – showed it was incapable of safeguarding such a vast volume of information safely, and the scheme should be dropped immediately.

An estimated 3billion emails are sent in Britain every day and last year 57billion text messages were sent.

The Home Office yesterday defended the need to keep its surveillance powers up to date with changing internet technology, and said full details of the plans would be published this year as part of a new Communications Data Bill.

Officials said the internet was rapidly revolutionising communications and it was vital for surveillance powers to keep up with technology in order to fight serious crime and terrorism.

Read Full Article Here

India: NSA to tap data traffic passing through Blackberry devices

Business Line
July 13, 2008

New Delhi, July 12 - In a bid to find a solution to the security concerns around Blackberry services, the National Security Adviser is now supervising a discussion between National Test Research Organisation, under the Home Ministry, Department of Telecom and Canada-based Research In Motion.

The discussions are being held to find a spot on RIM’s network where the data traffic passing through Blackberry could be intercepted by security agencies.

On the issue of setting up a local data centre within the country, RIM had said that Blackberry was designed to perform as a global system independent of geography. “The location of data centres and the customer’s choice of wireless network are irrelevant factors from a security perspective since end-to-end encryption is utilised,” RIM had said.

According to the agreement, YouTube will mask the identities of individual viewers when it provides viewership records to Viacom. Among the things YouTube will cloak: user IDs and Internet protocol addresses (the unique numbers for each Web-connected device).
...

Viacom has said that, under the court's confidentiality order, the data will be released only to its outside attorneys and consultants and can be used only in this lawsuit, not to pursue individuals.

Whew.  I was wondering whether I would surrender my privacy by showing a video discussing how better to  protect it.

YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights on a huge scale by taking the value of creative content on a massive scale for YouTube's benefit without payment or license.

YouTube recently suffered a blow in this case when U.S. District Judge, Louis Stanton, granted access to YouTube's maintenance logs to Viacom.  Viacom would like to use the data in order to prove that copyrighted videos are watched in greater volume than amateur clips.  This would allow Viacom to show that copyright protected content draws in viewers and produces a financial benefit for Google.  The logs contain information that is recorded to determine how often a clip is viewed.  However, each entry additionally contains the viewer's login ID and the IP address for the viewer's computer.

YouTube argued that producing such information, roughly equivalent to the text of 12 million books, would be expensive and time consuming.  However, the judge ruled that the legitimate need for the information outweighed the burden of producing the evidence.

Beyond the discovery concerns, is the issue of internet privacy.  First, the release of the IP address allows the viewer's computer to be identified.  The judge determined that privacy concerns were not implicated, as the IP address alone could not specifically identify the viewer.  However, privacy experts say the information that is needed to link a user to an IP address is not all that difficult to obtain.  Second, viwers have the right to view materials anonymously.  While login names may disguise a viewer, there are many cases where a viewer uses identifying information, such as a first or last name as an ID.

This decision has the potential to spur new requests for information about who is viewing controversial material on the interest.  Professor Tim Wu says,

We realize that there's this giant vault of information held by Google and YouTube and other companies, and [the ruling] makes very clear that any federal judge in the country can order access to it."

It is unclear how Google will proceed in the case.  While Viacom says that it won't be using the information to go after individuals, Google would be wise to attempt to narrow the scope of the information it is supposed to hand over to protect not only its customers, but privacy on the Internet as a whole.  Stay tuned.

 - Jaime DeRensis

"Just ten days ago a New York court ordered YouTube to transfer data it had stored, to Viacom. This incident only confirms what IxQuick has been saying for a long time - only erasing data can guarantee privacy."

Well, because of the terabytes of data that flow across the internet at any given moment its no wonder that I had somehow missed this particular article:

Court Orders YouTube to Give Viacom Video Logs

One of the ironies of the IxQuick article was that it mentioned that the YouTube had been ordered to transfer its data ten days ago which would make it the 4th of July, Independence Day!

Anyway, both articles are well worth reading as they pertain to the privacy issues that we must confront on a daily basis. The way things are going privacy is quickly becoming a thing of the past and subject to more and more government intervention. Soon we will have one big Government Police State similar or greater than the old German Stasi!

As for IxQuick I have already added it to my Firefox list of search engines.

Dutch search engine wins first Euro-privacy award - Feature
Amsterdam - Dutch search engine IxQuick Monday became the first company to receive the newly-established European Privacy Certificate. The award, expected to become an important instrument in privacy and data protection legislation, was given to IxQuick by the European watchdog for data protection in Kiel, Germany. More…