Archive for the ‘Internet’ Category
More signs Hulu subscription service is coming
October 22nd, 2009 | 
Author: On Thursday came more signals from News Corp. that Hulu will charge for at least some of its films and TV shows.
Chase Carey, News Corp.’s deputy chairman, suggested in comments he made at the OnScreen Media Summit that it’s just a matter of time before Hulu, the video service founded by News Corp. and NBC Universal, launches a subscription service.
“I think a free model is a very difficult way to capture the value of our content,” Carey said, according to a report Broadcasting & Cable, which co-hosted the conference. “I think what we need to do is deliver that content to consumers in a way where they will appreciate the value…Hulu concurs with (the notion) that it needs to evolve to have a meaningful subscription model as part of its business.”
Asked when Hulu would roll out its pay model, Carey, who has been to only one News Corp. board meeting since his recent arrival at the company, was less sure. According to Broadcasting & Cable, Carey thought the move would likely be made in 2010. He acknowledged however, that no timeline had been set.
Carey’s comments follow similar statements made by other News Corp. decision makers, including Rupert Murdoch, the company’s chairman. Murdoch has talked about charging for content at the online units of many of his media properties, including The Wall Street Journal.
If Hulu charges, it’s a big deal. The video site, which offers full-length TV shows from NBC Universal, Twentieth Century Fox Film, and other top entertainment companies, is a pioneer. It’s the first successful online ad-supported video service. If it begins to retreat from the ad-supported model, then what consumers may get left with is the cable model transplanted on the Web.
Charging for content online may not solve Hulu’s revenue problems. Subscription video-on-demand services have to compete with a score of sites that offer pirated content to consumers for free.
The presumption is that Hulu can’t sell enough ads or obtain the kind of ad rate that will generate the kind of money the studios are accustomed to getting. Experts say that if Hulu and other video sites try to put too many ads into the viewing experience, users will get annoyed.
It’s interesting to note that while News Corp. appears to be dissatisfied with the ad-supported model, Sony Pictures Entertainment appears to be doubling down on ad-supported Crackle.
None of the major studios are distributing more full-length feature films online than Sony Pictures. In February, Crackle began offering catalog film titles from its vast library on Crackle. Recently, “Taxidriver” made its ad-supported Internet debut.
Since Sony Pictures relaunched Crackle–formerly a user-generated video service–in February, the site’s premium monthly streams have grown to nearly 10 million, 27 percent of which were in the site’s core demographic (men, ages 18 to 34), according to statistics provided by ComScore. Time spent on Crackle has increased sevenfold in that period, to 13.4 minutes per unique session. In the core demographic, that number rises to 16.7 minutes.
Here’s another benefit that Crackle offers Sony. The site will post premium films when they aren’t under contract to a cable or broadcast TV station. Before Crackle came along, movies like “Taxidriver” would gather dust during the periods when they weren’t being aired.
We don’t know what kind of money is being made by Hulu or Crackle, but regardless of whether Hulu charges for its content, there is still hope for ad-supported movies and TV shows on the Internet.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10381622-261.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Posted in Entertainment, Hulu, Internet | 
Tags: Hulu, News Corp, paid subscription | 
Comments Closed
How Chrome users can scrub Yahoo logo off Flickr
Those of you who hate the recent arrival of Yahoo’s logo on Flickr now have an easy way to erase it–and get a number of useful features–as long as you’re using an edgy version of Chrome.
Fittr Flickr lets you click ‘EXIF’ to expand a box below the image to show photo details.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)
Chrome extensions let people customize the browser’s behavior, and the Fittr Flickr extension from Gmail programmer Dan Pupius whips Yahoo’s photo-sharing site into shape. Some people use extensions for using Delicious bookmarks, banishing ads, and filling out forms, but this is my favorite Chrome extension so far.
The Yahoo logo is ugly but not too bothersome in my eyes. Instead, what I like best about Fittr Flickr is its keyboard navigation options. Once the extension is installed, you can type “?” to see the options, but the two I now use a lot are “.” and “,” to navigate forward and backward through a person’s photostream. Typing “s” will star a photo as a favorite, and in a nice Google touch harkening to the vi text editor, “/” will put your cursor in the search field.
To use Chrome extensions, though, you must be using the developer preview version of the browser, since extensions are something of a work in progress. (Click to download for Windows or Mac OS X.) I’ve had to restart Chrome sometimes to enable the last two extensions I tried out.
Another nice feature for pixel-peepers such as myself is the addition of an EXIF button below the photo that reveals camera, lens, and exposure details without navigating away from the photo. Nearby are direct links to the small, medium, and large version of the photos.
There are some other nice tidbits, too, involving viewing photos against a black background, comments, and other matters.
Yahoo has to make Flickr appeal to a large swath of people, most of whom probably don’t care about these options. But for me, they unlock some of Flickr’s potential.
Firefox users who want similar technology can try Dustin Diaz’s Quickr Flickr script, which requires the Greasemonkey add-on for Firefox to be installed before the script can be added. Greasemonkey fans also can use a number of scripts that will un-Yahoo the logo.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10375399-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
New in Labs: Got the wrong Bob?
When’s the last time you got an email from a stranger asking, “Are you sure you meant to send this to me?” and promptly realized that you didn’t? Sometimes these little mistakes are actually quite painful. Hate mail about your boss to your boss? Personal info to some random guy named Bob instead of Bob the HR rep? Doh!
“Got the wrong Bob?” is a new Labs feature aimed at sparing you this kind of embarrassment. Turn it on from the Labs tab under Gmail Settings, and based on the groups of people you email most often, Gmail will try to identify when you’ve accidentally included the wrong person — before it’s too late.
If you normally email Bob Smith together with Tim and Angela, but this time you added Bob Jones instead, we’ll warn you that it might be a mistake. Note that this only works if you’re emailing more than two people at once.
While we were at it, we also changed the name of “Suggest more recipients” to “Don’t forget Bob” — the two related Labs features just kind of went together better this way.
If you want to test “Got the wrong Bob?” out, try faking a mistake like this:
1) Think of three people you often email together.
2) Compose a message to two of them.
3) Start typing the third member of the group (for help you can use one of the people we suggest in “Don’t forget Bob”), but then auto-complete on the wrong name.
If you have suggestions please let us know. And if “Got the wrong Bob?” happens to save you from making a really bad mistake, we want to hear about that too.
http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/new-in-labs-got-wrong-bob.html
Google Wave invites roll on, remain scarce
The initial hype for Google Wave invitations was massive and ended up leaving those who were left out of the first 100,000 disappointed. The good news is that Google has started to send out a larger volume of invitations again after having slowly trickled them out since the launch.
Google Wave’s Stephanie Hannon tweeted Sunday that Wave had overcome some of its stability issues over the weekend and that they were sending out a lot more invitations. As of Tuesday, “Google Wave” is the top trending topic on Twitter and the results are filled with users (including myself) bragging about receiving their invitations and not surprisingly, others begging for one.
The eBay economy for Google Wave invites has been pretty healthy, with some fetching upward of $80 to $100. This big influx of new invitees, all with 8 invitations each, will probably eliminate a lot of the demand for Wave invites on eBay, much like what happened with Gmail invites.
Full story :
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13515_3-10373785-26.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Posted in Communication, Google, Internet |
Tags: Google, Google Wave, invites, Twitter |
Comments Closed
Music publishers: ‘copyright should be technology neutral’
Composers, music publishers, and songwriters have told federal lawmakers that regardless of whether music is distributed to consumers via TV, DVDs or digital download, they need legislative help to ensure they get their fair share.
Two weeks ago, I wrote a story about how some of these groups want iTunes and other Web music retailers to pay performance fees for downloads of TV shows and films. They also want online music stores to cough up fees for 30-second song previews. Those revelations didn’t go over well with many techies.
But to get a better understanding of what the artists want from Congress, I asked David Israelite, president and CEO of the National Music Publishers Association, to forward me a copy of a March 10 letter written to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a consortium of trade groups representing songwriters, composers, and publishers. He agreed.
In the letter, signed by Israelite and representatives of such groups as Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI); American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP); and Songwriters Guild of America, the consortium wrote: “Technology should not be used to strip rights from songwriters, composers and music publishers. The choice of certain audiovisual delivery systems or methods over others should not result in a diminution of creators’ rights or royalties.”
The group later made this statement: “There is no question that copyright should be technology neutral” and asked Congress to make “a clarification to the copyright law” that specifically says that “the public performing right is implicated in digital downloads” of audiovisual works that feature music.
“We believe Congress intended the current law to be platform neutral,” the music consortium wrote to the Senators. “The conflicting interpretations demand clarification, for without it, performing right income of songwriters, composers and publishers is seriously threatened.”
The lobbying efforts of the songwriters, composers and music publishers continues.
All of this started with the shift in the way the public consumes media. Songwriters and publishers have for a long time collected performance fees from broadcast TV networks and film studios, but now more and more consumers are watching films and TV shows downloaded to their iPods or laptops, which at this point aren’t considered public performances.
A federal district judge court ruled in 2008 that “there is no copyright protection for the public performance right when a work containing music is digitally transmitted for future playing or viewing” the consortium wrote in the March 10 letter.
The music creators have appealed the decision.
How is this the consumer’s problem?
To critics, composers, songwriters and publishers are asking for a guarantee that they will get paid for public performances even if there isn’t any public performance.
Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Web users and technology companies, disagrees with the argument that copyright should be technology neutral.
“The Copyright Act has never been technology neutral,” von Lohmann said. “The (Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s) Safe Harbors only applies to online services. There are areas that apply only to cable and satellite providers. The Copyright Act is always trying to strike a compromise.”
He added that music creators already collect other licensing fees, for such things as synchronization rights and he maintains, iTunes or other music retailers shouldn’t be responsible for making up losses for music creators.
“The copyright owner is going to get paid,” von Lohmann said. “Whether it’s called a performance or a reproduction the copyright owner is going to get paid. This is just a turf war between middlemen about who is going to take a piece off the top. The copyright office has tried to broker some sort of solution between the various parties for years with little success.
“We’ll get some more guidance from the courts soon,” he continued, “but I doubt that will be the last word. As (Israelite’s) letter suggests the parties can all go fight it out in Congress now.”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10370513-261.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
