The number one album on iTunes as of Saturday wasn’t a new release by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Pearl Jam or Paul Simon, although these musical debuts were in the top ten. The number one “album” on iTunes was Stephen Colbert’s roast of President Bush at the White House Correspondents Dinner three weeks ago. For a comedy routine that fell flat in the live delivery, that baby’s got legs.
Although no one is saying just how many downloads (audio-only via Audible.com) there have been of Colbert’s post-dinner skit, at $1.95/pop, C-SPAN, the usually stodgy and decidedly non-profit cable network, is not raking in an unexpected windfall from the performance. C-SPAN owns the copyright to the entire recorded version of the dinner but sells its audio material to Audible for a flat monthly fee.
Although I thought the routine was hilarious (unlike, apparently, the journalists and politicos in the room), I would not have predicted the success it has had. I’ve even had conversations today about the YouTube video version of Colbert’s roast (which C-SPAN had pulled due to a deal it had with Google video). What the heck gives?
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:26 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Multichannel News’ Linda Haugsted reports that Alan Weinkrantz, “a technologically savvy blogger” will be part of AT&T’s San Antonio beta test of its U-Verse IPTV service. Haugsted described Weinkrantz as “a potential nightmare client,” presumably because he may have some frank and embarassing (to AT&T) criticism if U-Verse stumbles out of the gate.
In press release, Weinkrantz describes himself as a “PR tech blogger…[whose] agency’s clients “include AudioCodes, CopperGate Communications, Mercom Systems, pulver.com/Jeff Pulver.”
“The week of May 22, I’ll be writing about my experience with both AT&T…and Time Warner…ordering service, disconnecting the cable company, the installation and set-up, and user experience,” stated Weinkrantz.
The daily posts will also include a “Memo to Ed,” which will be suggestions to AT&T chairman Ed Whitacre. Weinkrantz is offering Whitacre (or any senior level AT&T executive) the opportunity to come to his house to hang out and watch IPTV on the family’s 56-inch Sony TV. “Y’all are invited over during the upcoming Memorial Day weekend. We can watch TV, surf the web at blazing speeds, and with a few hours’ advance notice, I’ll even grill steaks,” states Weinkrantz.
Weinkrantz currently has three TVs running on the AT&T system and operates a totally wireless home, with the help of Apple AirPort devices. Even the stereo system can be controlled from Weinkrantz’s Apple PowerBook so he can listen to his iTunes-based music or favorite Internet radio stations.
In a post today, Weinkrantz says his household has three TV sets: a new 56’ HD-capable model and two analog sets in his childrens’ bedrooms. He also says that he’s “been a long time TimeWarner San Antonio cable customer and have no complaints about the service, or dealing with the company. They deliver a great service.” He also explains that:
I am approaching the blog posts I am about to make as a consumer and not a technologist or a PR consultant to our clients. No one is paying me to do this. AT&T is offering the service at no charge, now - through October. I have lost my HD signal, and I knew this going into the trial.Posted by Mitch Shapiro at 10:01 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Wired News has taken a bold step by publishing documents produced by a whistleblower in the suit brought by EFF against AT&T for cooperating with a warrantless wiretapping program instigated by the NSA. While the judge in that case has ordered documents produced by former AT&T technician Mark Klein to be sealed, Wired News has somehow managed to get some of Klein’s documents and has published them. (PDF download of Klein’s evidence here.)
The documents back up Klein’s statement that he suspected AT&T was secretly cooperating with the NSA in wiretapping activities and even include photos of a “secret room” at AT&T’s facilities which only government officials or those with top secret government clearance could enter.
In an accompanying note, Wired News Editor Evan Hansen explains why the online magazine chose to publish the documents.
AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.
Based on what we’ve seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public’s right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T’s claims to secrecy.
As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF’s primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein — information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked “proprietary,” and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.
Although the documents are sealed by the court, a gag order in place apparently only bars EFF from discussing and disseminating the information, so Wired News feels that it is not violating this part of the court’s decision. Wired News also claims that independent technical experts reviewed the documents and did not find any material that could be harmful to AT&T or its network security.
In part because it’s hard to judge the nature of the material handed to Wired News, the organization is joining in a press motion requesting that the court unseal the evidence.
The AT&T documents appear to be excerpted from material that was later filed in the lawsuit under seal. But we can’t be entirely sure, because the protective order prevents us from comparing the two sets of documents.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:31 PM | Print | Comments (0)
This week, we are joining in efforts to bring this evidence to light in its entirety.
We are filing a motion to intervene in the case in order to request that the court unseal the evidence, joining other news and civil rights organizations that have already done so, including the EFF, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, the San Jose Mercury News, the Associated Press and Bloomberg.
The LA Times Jim Puzzanghera has this semi-juicy piece today on how Google isn’t making the political impact inside the Beltway that it should given the company’s size and influence.
Since opening its Washington office last summer, Google’s attempts to establish its presence has moved at dial-up speed — resulting in a slow and sometimes balky connection with lawmakers that has irritated both Democrats and Republicans.
“I think they’ve been a little bit too innocent in how the game is played,” said Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a tech-focused Washington think tank.
One big problem for Google is just how smart the company’s leadership is — Washington, although filled with over-intelligent hyper-achievers, can be pretty, well, base in its instincts, which have very little to do with intellectual intelligence.
“Politics is much more of an art than a science,” said Rick White, former head of TechNet, an industry lobbying group. “Art is probably too nice a word for it. It’s a right-brain thing. These guys really come out of a left-brain kind of world. A lot of them who are very well-meaning, very effective, smart people, still have a hard time intuitively understanding how Washington, D.C., works.”
Another big problem, although an understandable one for principled corporate leaders: Google sticks with its political philosophy in making donations and has stiffed Republicans, who just so happen to run Washington these days.
In the 2004 election cycle, Google employees gave 99% of their $251,679 in contributions to Democrats. Sun Microsystems Inc. was next among the top 20 companies with 76% going to Democrats, followed by IBM Corp. at 71% and Yahoo Inc. at 63%, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The tech industry average is 54% to Democrats and 46% to Republicans. In the 2006 election cycle, Google has barely changed — Democrats are getting 96% of its campaign money.
Google may, however, be coming up the learning curve (and losing its principles in the process — but hey, politics is not pretty): the company announced on Friday the hiring of Bush White House aide Jamie E. Brown.
In a perhaps unrelated article, the LA Times’ Chris Gaither writes about Google’s secretiveness when it comes to how it computes ad rates or ad rankings, an opaque characteristic that is starting to rankle some investors and advertiers.
All that depends on imponderably complex mathematical formulas, a sophisticated accounting system, an aloof corporate culture and a growth strategy secret to all but the upper echelon of the company — making Google one of the most mysterious companies of this century or last.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:43 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Although Google playfully reveals how much chicken and coffee its engineers consume every month, as it did during Google Press Day last year, the company won’t disclose much potentially helpful information about its core business, such as how many search queries it returns, how many companies advertise through Google and whether ad prices are increasing or decreasing.
Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig has this analysis of the network neutrality issue and how network neutrality and the issue of “fair use” in copyright law are really the same thing.
The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight — the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end.
Put in these terms, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) do go hand-in-hand and most people will favor both FU and NN or reject FU and NN but not split their philosophies.
What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other — at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of “government regulation.”
Professor Lessig is one of those rare birds that rejects FU and accepts NN.
But, and far be it from me to take on the esteemed Professor, isn’t this an illogical comparison? As one commenter to Professor Lessig’s post notes, fair use involves intellectual property while network neutrality involves physical property.
The most striking difference between FU and NN is that FU restricts the rights granted to owners of Intellectual Property (more about this in my next point) while NN restricts the rights of owners of physical property.
So the two concepts can’t be equated easily…except, there is something of an intellectual property issue surrounding network neutrality and perhaps that’s why Professor Lessig is attempting to conflate the two.
Without network neutrality, will some content creators be limited in terms of what they can do with their property? Will they, in other words, be blocked from reaching the marketplace? That’s the argument made by network neutrality proponents and it sure sounds like an intellectual property argument.
But it’s not. It’s a First Amendment argument, it’s a free speech argument, but it doesn’t strike me as having anything to do with intellectual property law as we know it. Perhaps this is the territory Professor Lessig is trying to explore — whether there are some intellectual property arguments to be made in favor of network neutrality regulations.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:50 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Both Mitch and I have been following the steep rise of the Internet’s role in politics this mid-term election season, as blogging and podcasting and social networking emerge as key tools in political campaigning. Two AP articles today underscore how Web 2.0 applications are changing American elections.
The first focuses on national politicians such as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who relies on his blog to cut through the media wall to reach his constituents directly.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., responds on a weekly basis to questions on his blog. He also is among several politicians who have recorded podcasts, self-made audio or video broadcasts that can be downloaded from the Internet to a computer or portable gadget. The former heart surgeon who is considering a 2008 presidential bid said he saw the power of podcasts when one in which he discussed avian flu was featured on a conservative blog and downloaded a million times. Frist, 54, said the technology allows him to “break through the gaggle of reporters” and “touch people who are sitting in Smyrna, Tennessee.”
Video is playing an increasing role in political web strategies — Presidential hopeful John Edwards (D-NC) offers a video diary and other candidates find the direct delivery of video useful.
Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat who is considering a presidential run, recently added a professional blogger to his staff. Warner likes to use video podcasts. “Things that you can see and hear make a much greater impact than just reading,” says Ellen Qualls, Warner’s communications director. “Video of the governor is a much more powerful tool than simply an e-mail or blog post from him.”
At the state level, more and more gubernatorial candidates are turning to blogs, videos and of course email to spur their campaigns.
“There are just so many ways to get people involved and feeling a part of the campaign,” said Peter Pendergast, a spokesman for independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 7:44 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Until now, politicians mainly have used the Web as a fundraising tool. But now that the digital age has settled in, they’re using e-mails, text messages, podcasts and social networking sites, such as Meetup.com or Facebook.com, to learn what’s going on and reach out to voters.
Mihos’ Web site includes a section where supporters can register their dogs as “canine coordinators” to rally voters and their pets. Attorney General Tom Reilly’s campaign keeps a blog on the candidate’s Web site that staffers update and where people can post comments.
Blogs We Read
