For those of us who are fans of the hard-to-categorize Flight of the Conchords, we've been disappointed that video of the duo's appearance at the end of Comcast CEO Brian Robert's CES keynote speech was nowhere to be found on the Internet, not even on Comcast's special CES site. The video replay of Roberts' session was cut off right before the Conchords appeared, apparently due to a rights clearance issue.
Whatever the reason, the problem has been resolved and video of the Conchords' very funny CES performance is now available. The video is here. Fast forward to the last twelve minutes of the video. You won't regret it.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 1:37 PM | Print | Comments (0)Two bits of news today underscore the potential permanent loss that Hollywood might experience as a result of the protracted writers' strike. First, Nielsen Online reports that traffic to some online video sites has doubled since the strike began at the end of October and suggests that the strike could be a factor.
On top of this, Pew Internet and American Life Project has a study that says that nearly half of Internet users visit video sharing sites and that visits to these sites have doubled in the past year. These two sets of findings are prompting some folks to say that the big shift to online video has arrived, fueled by the writers strike.
I think that's right and the negotiators on both sides of the strike should take serious heed. Some unknown but undoubtedly large percentage of viewers who defect to the Internet will be lost to the TV set forever once the strike is over (which, btw, might not be for months and months, based on a conversation I had the other day with entertainment attorney-pundit-blogger Jonathan Handel. Handel thinks things won't get resolved by June, when the Screen Actors Guild is purportedly slated to go on strike. After that, it could take months before a cross-guild compromise is struck.)
But a more serious problem for Hollywood is what I suspect is an undocumented rise in traffic to all those sites out there that host pirated content. Neither Nielsen nor Pew directly factored in these abundant sources of full-length TV shows and films into their studies.
Not to name names, but lately a lot of people I know have "discovered" unbelievable sites that offer virtually unlimited menus of unedited TV shows and films, and the quality of transmission is superb. These sites are like Hulu on massive doses of steroids, only global and with practically every TV show and film made.
At first I caught one person watching British films and TV shows on a site emanating from Japan. Then, someone else mentioned to me that (s)he watches this site from somewhere in Asia (Thailand? Vietnam?) that is a cornucopia of amazing vastness. It seems to offer every TV show and film ever made, in every language.
If there is nothing to watch but repeats on regular old TV, and no real reason to visit the local multiplex theater, I think these clearly illegal sites are going to get the boost of their lives. Because they are amazing.
So, are the producers and writers just hastening the death of Hollywood with their intrasigent positions? Probably. As much as Hollywood wants to stamp out piracy, its inability to forge a pact with the writers is just pushing people into the arms of the pirates. As for the writers, well, they may be holding out for bigger residuals in the online world, but a bigger percentage of nothing is nothing.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:48 PM | Print | Comments (1)Fred Vogelstein has this feature piece in Wired entitled "The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry." It's a must-read because it's filled with juicy insider tidbits on how the iPhone came into being.
My favorite part of the article: Steve Jobs referred to telephone company executives (presumably not his main man at AT&T Stan Sigman) as "orifices," a slur that you could easily believe was fabricated by Fake Steve Jobs.
Other interesting items:
--The stress was so high at Apple during the three months preceding the launch of the iPhone that engineers quit their jobs simply to have time to sleep and one "product manager slammed the door to her office so hard that the handle bent and locked her in; it took colleagues more than an hour and some well-placed whacks with an aluminum bat to free her."
--Displeased with an early, buggy version of the iPhone, Steve Jobs frightened employees at a meeting by simply staring at them.
--The profitability of the iPhone is huge. Apple nets $80 for every phone sold and generates $240 over every two-year AT&T contract from its revenue split with the carrier. 40% of iPhone buyers are new to AT&T.
--Apple spent millions testing the iPhone internally, constructing elaborate test facilities including one to ensure that the iPhone didn't generate too much radiation. "Apple built models of human heads -- complete with goo to simulate brain density-- and measured the effects."
--Secrecy was so tight that whenever Apple executives visited AT&T (then Cingular), they registered as employees of Infineon, the company Apple used to make the iPhone's transmitter. By the time the iPhone was announced, only 30 people had actually seent it.
A possible test case that could probe the boundaries of the First Amendment right to free speech is brewing in a Vermont family court. William Krasnansky and Maria Garrido are in the midst of a divorce and Krasnansky has put up a blog that features an ongoing, thinly fictionalized account of his marriage that is not flattering to Garrido.
Judge Thomas Devine of Washington County Family Court, who oversees this case, has ordered William to stop posting blog items about his wife, a decision that raises serious free speech issues. Krasnansky and his attorney argue that Devine's order constitutes prior restraint and a violation of the First Amendment and should be vacated.
Ms. Garrido's lawyer says that Krasnansky's blog constitutes harassment, which divorce courts don't like, and is grounds for a defamation claim (which belongs in civil, not family, court). Surprisingly, the law is not settled in situations like this, namely issuing prior restraint orders in cases involving defamation, although the Supreme Court has once tentatively said that prior restraint in defamation cases is overly broad.
In the meantime, Krasnansky is engaging in "civil disobedience" by continuing to post "fictional" items about his crumbling marriage, exercising his First Amendment rights while sticking it to Garrido.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 8:40 AM | Print | Comments (1)
Blogs We Read
