Più grandi sono più rumore fanno cadendo. Chissà se il mondo è prossimo ad assistere alla Terza Guerra Mondiale. Niente armi nucleari stavolta e, fortunatamente, non ci saranno nemmeno vittime cadute sul campo.

Certo è che la battaglia tra l’inedita accoppiata Microsoft + Murdoch versus Google è di quelle capaci di rivoluzionare il mondo dei media e di internet.

Noi che siamo netizen sì, ma anche imparziali, ci sediamo sulla riva del fiume e cerchiamo di capire quale sarà il cadavere della multinazionale che transiterà per primo.

Continua a leggere “La Guerra continua: Microsoft & Murdoch vs. Google, primo round”

Lichtgeschwindigkeit 87 PIRATEN in PRESSE

die ungeschnittene Piraten-Presseschau – am Dienstag, 24. November 2009,

von Dr. Dietmar Moews im Alphons-Silbermann-Zentrum Berlin Pankow;

ferner Süddeutsche Zeitung und Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung vom 24. November 2009.

Piratenthema heute: REVOLUTION der PIRATEN: SEX und IT.

Keine andere Partei hat begriffen, dass zwei revolutionäre Änderungen

eingetreten sind, noch weithin unbemerkt, aber in der ganzen Welt:

Die paarungsfreie Nachkommenschaft – Frauen können künstlich

genetisch befruchtet Kinder austragen, ohne zeugende Manneskräfte.

Die I-Politik muss an die erste Stelle der Frage Mensch oder

Robotik gestellt werden, damit die digitale Kommunikationsrevolution

menschliche Züge behält.

Piraten in der großen Presse mit dem Neupiraten Angelika Beer,

ehemalige Mitgründerin der GRÜNEN, Bundesvorstand von

Bündnis 90/Die GRÜNEN und über die Landesliste Schleswig-Holstein

MdB und MdEP.

Die Süddeutsche Zeitung titelt mit dem steuer- und finanzpolitischen

Drama: Länder wehren sich gegen den Bund. Angelika Beer trat

der Piratenpartei bei. Und zwei weitere Piratenthemen:

Duell zwischen Microsoft/Murdoch und Google – wie sehr kann

Kapital Macht (Murdoch) ausüben und wie sehr Intelligenz und

Leistung (Google)? Sowie: Wo der Krieg zu Hause ist: Amerika

ist der Kämpfe müde: So viele Soldaten kommen in Särgen aus

der Ferne zurück.

ICANN – das Internet bleibt in amerikanischer Hand.

Das Internet Governance Forum hat in Scharm El Scheik

getagt und keine ermutigenden Beschlüsse gefasst.

Ahoi – Klarmachen zum Ändern

Produktion, Performance, Autor, Direktion: Dr. Dietmar Moews,

Piratencrew Berlin, 8 days, the beads, dietmarmoews.com

Zum Artikel von Chris, Am Scheidpunkt angelangt, wurden in den Comments ja schon ein paar Punkte erörtert. Also, von Chris und mir zumindest…

Dessen ungeachtet dreht sich die Welt natürlich weiter und die Debatte um die Entlohnung von Journalismus in der Zukunft wird mit Feuereifer weitergeführt. Markus Beckedahl vom Blog netzpolitik.org, einem der wichtigsten deutschen Blogs, hat eben einen interessanten Artikel zum Thema verfasst. Er führt einige Punkte auf, warum die Verlage auch einfach mal – ich zitiere sinngemäß – die Klappe halten könnten. Hier wäre der meiner Meinung nach wichtigste:

6. Im klassischen Printjournalismus wurden 2008 28,6 Prozent für Herstellung, 24,3 Prozent für Redaktion, 24,7 Prozent für Vertrieb, 15,7 Prozent für Anzeigen und 7,8 Prozent für Verwaltung aufgewendet (Quelle: BDZV). Einnahmeseitig standen dem 45,2 Prozent aus Anzeigen, 8,6 Prozent aus Fremdbeilagen und 46,2 Prozent aus dem Vertrieb gegenüber. Entfallen also die 46 Prozent Einnahmen aus dem Vertrieb, stehen dem Einsparungen in Höhe von 28,6 Prozent Herstellung und 24,7 im Vertrieb (- Summe x für Onlinevertrieb) gegenüber. Das klingt nicht unmöglich zu wuppen, werte Herren!

Einen Satz aus den Kommentaren möchte ich euch ebenfalls nicht vorenthalten:

Ich finde obendrein, dass Onliner langsam damit anfangen sollten, zum Thema Papier zu schweigen: Die ganze Hysterie – sie betrifft all jene nicht, die nach wie vor Zeitungen lesen und ganz glücklich damit sind.

Polemisch, aber lustig. Und ein Fünkchen Wahrheit ist sicherlich auch dran.

Warum die Verleger zum Internet einfach schweigen sollten

Wer übrigens den Blick nochmal zurück auf das Murdoch-Imperium richten möchte, könnte sich diese Kolumne von Peter Cashmore bei CNN Tech anschauen. Der Junge weiß, wovon er schreibt.

Newspapers and traditional media have seen their world and their business models crumble before their very eyes. Newspaper revenues have plummeted by nearly 30% in the last year alone, while newspaper circulation numbers are in the toilet. The web is destroying outdated business models and replacing them with more efficient ones.

These newspaper and media companies aren’t just letting themselves get destroyed, though. Some have gone web-only, some are embracing social media, and then some are blaming Google.

When we first heard that Rupert Murdoch intended to remove News Corp websites from Google, we weren’t impressed. We didn’t understand his plan, but we did believe that it wouldn’t work.

Then This Google Thing Got Out of Hand

Let’s think about this: in a few months, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and most of the 56 daily newspapers of MediaNews Group could be de-indexed from Google and Google News(and in News Corp’s case, displayed prominently on Bing).

Experian Hitwise explored yesterday what would happen if this plan comes to fruition. As the following graph demonstrates, Google alone accounts for 20+ percent of newspaper traffic:

Some of that traffic would remain intact (we really doubt Murdoch would remove the homepage of the Wall Street Journal from Google, thus searches for the WSJ in general would remain unaffected), but overall it’d be a devastating traffic blow. Google is still the main method of information discovery online, and that trend will only grow as more kids turn to Google instead of the $0.75 daily.

In short: Rupert’s plan will gut his company and doesn’t set News Corp up for the future.

Rupert, We Understand Your Dilemma

“Murdoch has essentially declared that the free-for-all in online news has ended. Specifically, he states that good journalism isn’t cheap (that’s true) and that, while the web has made distribution cheap, it has not made it free. He also hopes to gain more revenue from major celebrity scoops from his tabloid papers (i.e. the Sun). His bet is that people will indeed pay for news content.:

The next paragraph explains our arguments, though:

“We’re not so sure. While we don’t disagree with the need to find additional revenue streams for newspapers and quality journalism, we think there are plenty of alternative news resources to turn to. Murdoch must see something encouraging at the WSJ, because he wouldn’t be going with this plan if he didn’t think they could replicate that model without losing significant readership.”

Sorry Rupert, but newspapers aren’t going to increase anytime soon and up-and-coming blogs and media companies aren’t going away. Maybe we were wrong about you seeing something in the WSJ model. Maybe you just don’t understand how media has been fundamentally altered by the web.

This Isn’t the Future of Media, Murdoch

We’ve had enough. Murdoch’s plan to de-index from Google is getting out of control, and it threatens to speed up the destruction of all traditional media. If other newspapers decide to join this insanity, here’s what will happen: more efficient organizations will step in to fill the gaps. There is no shortage of lean and socially savvy media organizations built in the last five years.

The future of media isn’t in The Wall Street Journal, no matter how much value it provides society. No, the future is in the web, fast-paced blogs, and social media. The future is in companies that realize that news a day old is, well, a day old. The future is in information discovery, not in hiding content.

We know your empire is not doing so well, Murdoch, but that doesn’t excuse you from taking your company down a path that will take you into oblivion. No Microsoft deal will fix the inherent problems with the newspaper business model.

What News Corp should be doing instead: Finding more efficient means of distribution, leveraging its revenue-generating assets, exploring new methods of payments, and encouraging innovation. We’re not psychics or high-profile consultants, but we know which models are winning and which ones are not.

In short, Murdoch, take your ball and go home. Your plan can only hurt News Corp.

__________________________________________________________

“Take your Google Ball and go home” is taken from Mashable.com

(Mashable.com)

Comment,Rate, and SHARE!

Sharing is back! You will now find the Share/Save button below each and every post. Thanks for you patience while it was not able to be their.

101201

Lichtgeschwindigkeit 86 PIRATEN in PRESSE

die ungeschnittene Piraten-Presseschau – am Montag, 23. November 2009,

von Dr. Dietmar Moews im Alphons-Silbermann-Zentrum Berlin Pankow;

ferner Süddeutsche Zeitung und Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung vom 24. November 2009.

Piratenthema heute: REVOLUTION der PIRATEN: SEX und IT.

Keine andere Partei hat begriffen, dass zwei revolutionäre Änderungen

eingetreten sind, noch weithin unbemerkt, aber in der ganzen Welt:

Die paarungsfreie Nachkommenschaft – Frauen können künstlich

genetisch befruchtet Kinder austragen, ohne zeugende Manneskräfte.

Die I-Politik muss an die erste Stelle der Frage Mensch oder Robotik

gestellt werden, damit die digitale Kommunikationsrevolution menschliche

Züge behält.

Piraten in der großen Presse mit dem Neupiraten Angelika Beer,

ehemalige Mitgründerin der GRÜNEN, Bundesvorstand von

Bündnis 90/Die GRÜNEN und über die Landesliste Schleswig-Holstein

MdB und MdEP.

Die Süddeutsche Zeitung titelt mit dem steuer- und finanzpolitischen

Drama: Länder wehren sich gegen den Bund. Angelika Beer trat der

Piratenpartei bei. Und zwei weitere Piratenthemen: Duell zwischen

Microsoft/Murdoch und Google – wie sehr kann Kapital Macht (Murdoch)

ausüben und wie sehr Intelligenz und Leistung (Google)? Sowie:

Wo der Krieg zu Hause ist: Amerika ist der Kämpfe müde:

So viele Soldaten kommen in Särgen aus der Ferne zurück.

ICANN – das Internet bleibt in amerikanischer Hand. Das Internet

Govermance Forum hat in Scharm El Scheik getagt und keine

ermutigenden Beschlüsse gefasst.

Ahoi – Klarmachen zum Ändern

Produktion, Performance, Autor, Direktion: Dr. Dietmar Moews,

Piratencrew Berlin, 8 days, the beads, dietmarmoews.com

…og verdens internettgründere jubler! Selvmordet til Murdoch stenger jo ikke internett på noen måte, slik Dagbladet skriver – og det gjør ei heller at Dagbladet nå tar penger for at folk skal kunne kommentere artiklene deres. Vi jubler for dette, fordi det åpner for konkurranse – i alle fall så lenge internett i praksis er fritt.

Denne mannen vil lukke det åpne internettet, skriver Dagbladet – som selv tar betalt for at folk skal kunne kommentere i avisen. Gidder jeg å betale for å ytre min mening, kanskje? Ser det slik ut? Gjør jeg det nå? Selvfølgelig ikke. Jeg bruker en alternativ kanal for å ytre min mening, og som konsekvens har jeg nesten sluttet å lese Dagbladet.no da det ikke er så interessant lenger uten å kunne kommentere direkte. Åpenbart leser jeg fortsatt Dagbladet, men jeg er jo veldig takknemlig for at Dagbladet nå har utvidet min horisont. Det er jo tross alt så mye annet bra der ute, dermed trenger jeg ikke bruke tiden på gamle utdøende reptiler.

Det same gjelder selvsagt Rupert Murdoch. Han ønsker å gjøre alle hans nettpublikasjoner til betalte tjenester, ikke ulikt Dagbladets sjakktrekk med å gjøre kommentering til en betalt tjeneste. (Faen, det er jo jeg som gjør dem en tjeneste når jeg kommenterer dritten deres!) I tillegg ønsker han å gjøre tjenestene usynlig fra Google…

Så, hva skjer da, egentlig. Åpenbart kommer Murdoch fortsatt til å tjene penger. Det er nok av folk som fortsatt er interessert i å bruke penger på hans tjenester, akkurat som det fortsatt finnes nok av folk som lar seg lure til å betale for å kommentere på Dagbaldet.

Alle vi andre, vi finner alternativer, vi. Sannsynligvis kommer det kjapt tjenester på banen som tar over tomrommet fra Murdoch og andre nyhetsleverandører. Dette skaper bare muligheter for folk som har lyst å komme på banen – kanskje folk som DEG!

Verden er herlig, dere!

Even if Murdoch blocked google on his sites, all those other third party sites referencing Murdoch’s content will still be indexed by googles spiders. There in lies the problem.

The current robot.txt file lacks the ability to define syndication access rights!!

What we need is

1. a better robot.txt file that allows the definition of syndication

2. google and other engines to honor syndication permissions

If BING wants to win the content war, it should extend BING to leverage AZURE “Access Controller”. This would allow Content Owners to define just how there content flows and more importantly who is allowed to index & Syndicate there content.

“CONTROL OF SYNDICATION” is the issue here!!

L’accordo con Microsoft per far fuori Google. Tattica o strategia?

Cliccando sull’immagine è possibile, se d’interesse, proseguire la lettura sulla “saga” che anima il mondo internazionale dell’editoria.

Follow up to my post on the search-engine exclusive (which was linked to by AtlanticMonthly) … other interesting commentary:

From Gizmodo, another reminder about Microsoft’s past:

This is the Microsoft we know from the last century, before great underdog products like Xbox and Zune. This is from a company who’s CEO recently told us that sales are more important than critical acclaim, preferring profit over better product. And this is a company that gets in its anticompetitive digs when it can: For example, in Internet Explorer, it’s really hard to set Google as your default browser, not being listed in the alternative choices to Bing. Yet, in Google Chrome, it’s easy to set Bing as the default search. [...]

People, I’m telling you, this is bad news. People talk about net neutrality like it’s only about the data’s prioritization over the pipes. But what good is equivalence in data speed and prioritization if you can’t find it in the first place?

From eCommerce Times, on the gamble this is re traffic:

“If you’re giving up a big percentage of potential exposure to your existing or potential customer base, can you make up for that somehow? That’s like canceling your ads on the Super Bowl. There’s more potential detriment here to News Corp.”

From TechDirt, on the flawed vision:

But the key thing is that none of this does anything to help users. And that’s the problem. It’s not adding even the tiniest sliver of additional benefit to users. And these days, that’s a strategic error. If your business is focused on making life more difficult for a competitor, rather than adding more value to users, you’re doing the wrong thing.

From BoingBoing (Rob Beschizza, not Cory) on just how much Steve Ballmer may hate Google:

But there’s one gamble which does make some twisted sense: that Microsoft is an irrational consumer. It’s easy to believe that it may spew senseless riches into publishers’ pockets, radically distorting the news market, just to spite Google.

From the NZ Herald, a summary of the emotions coloring this announcement (the myth of rationality, front and center):

NewsCorp is furious that Google pays it not a dime for the content it skims from its global publishing empire, while Microsoft is fed up with seeing its own search engine service, relaunched earlier this year as Bing, so comprehensively outgunned.

From Hitwise, more data (emphasis added)

As of last week, WSJ.com’s referred and non-referred traffic from Google and Google News amounted to 15.3% and 11.0% respectively.  [...] The potential loss of Google News traffic is potentially more serious. As reported here, over the three years, WSJ.com’s traffic from Google News has grown from 2% to over 11%. As we see in the table below, the Journal is receiving more than double the traffic from Google News than newspaper sites overall (a custom category including national and regional papers). Bing, a potential News Corp. suitor for search exclusivity provides less than half of Google News’ volume as of last week.

Microsoft and News Corp in Discussions to Remove Newspaper Content from Google

Yes, really. Rupert Murdoch’s crusade to blame Google for the failing newspaper business model continues today, as it emerges that News Corp has conducted talks with Microsoft about de-indexing the company’s sites from Google and (presumably) being paid to include them in Bing instead.

Murdoch-Microsoft deal in the works

Microsoft is ready to pay Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. to remove its news content from Google, according to the Financial Times. Microsoft has also approached other “big online publishers” with similar deals.

“Struggle for Rights Media Guide”

CFCM: Rethinking News

This post covers presentations at MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media at MIT’s communications forum.

Cristina Xu leads off a segment focused on the future of news. She introduces her project, the News Positioning System, by digging into American history to talk about “transient newspapers”. When the US postal system heavily subsidized the mailing of newspapers, they began being used as mementos, or as post cards, underlined to make certain points. The practice became so widespread that Congress had to intervene, deciding that underlining a sentence in a newspaper was okay, while underlining letters to send a letter was not.

War Correspondence: The Digital Revolution’s Dangerous Turn

An article in Sunday’s New York Times by Chris Nicholson brings home an important lesson about digital life under The Law of Disruption. When social contracts are formed, the medium is often the message.

The story involves the Second Life virtual environment. A couple met and married online through the site, and with virtual currency called Lindens, purchased and furnished an island retreat. After the husband died in real life, the wife could not continue to make maintenance payments on the island. Linden Labs, which runs Second Life, erased all of their shared digital possessions.

Why we fall for fast news

Friend and colleague Dan Gillmor came up with a powerful idea at a Berkman retreat this past week – the need for a “slow news movement” in journalism, a focus on reporting that’s about careful, reasoned analysis, not about speed. (Dan credits the term to me – that’s too kind. I’m merely the wiseass who took the complex idea he was putting forward and reduced it to a soundbite.)

Dan offers two reasons why news outlets publish news as quickly as possible, forcing themselves to correct and retract when following a story like the tragic Ft. Hood shootings. A newsroom veteran, Dan credits journalists’ natural competitive instincts for some the need for speed. And he points out that speed is a way of maintaining an audience: “Being first draws a crowd. Crowds can be turned into influence, money or both. Witness cable news channels’ desperate hunt for ‘the latest’ when big events are under way, even though the latest is so often the rankest garbage.”

Double threat to quality journalism: Tighter deadlines, fewer copy editors

Readers who have come to rely on sports journalist Tom Boswell’s quality baseball coverage for the Washington Post, might not have been quite so impressed with Monday’s offering: His column, covering Sunday’s World Series game, was sent to the printers awash with typos, grammatical errors and misspellings; generating a number of complaints.

Hossein Derakhshan’s Arrest: One Year Later

It’s been over a year now since the arrest of Hossein Derakhshan, popularly known as Hoder. Ever since he wrote the first Persian-language blogging guide in November 2001, he has helped pioneer the Iranian blogging community while living in his adopted home of Toronto. (Derakhshan is a dual citizen of Iran and Canada.)

However, beginning in 2006, Derakhshan’s views started changing. He called for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and engaged in personal attacks against people that he disagreed with politically. He was even sued for libel by another Iranian in September 2007.

Slow News: designing reflection and contemplation into the news-cycle

Dan Gillmor sez, “Slow food was a great idea. Maybe we need ’slow news’ in an era of accelerating — and wrong — information.” Like many other people who’ve been burned by believing too quickly, I’ve learned to put almost all of what journalists call “breaking news” into the categories of gossip or, in the words of a scientist friend, “interesting if true.” That is, even though I gobble up “the latest” from a variety of sources, the closer the information is in time to the actual event, the more I assume it’s unreliable if not false.

Murdoch vows to remove Newscorp’s websites from Google searches

In his latest move, Murdoch has vowed to remove newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – from Google’s search index. The mogul sees this as step towards encouraging people to pay for online content, the Guardian has reported.

YouTube Direct launches to help news outlets gather citizen videos

YouTube is releasing a new open-source interface called YouTube Direct that aims to make it easier for news organisations to have access to relevant clips from citizen journalists, it was widely reported. The application, to be unveiled today, will allow media outlets to integrate a video upload tool into their sites, where they can accept and screen user footage, described TechCrunch. All content uploaded will also appear on the YouTube site.

YouTube Lets Anyone Create Their Own iReport

If you watch CNN, you’ve probably seen iReports – videos submitted by users around the world about news events via the company’s citizen journalism website. The site played a key role in helping the network obtain footage during the Iran election crisis.

BBC joins growing list of media outlets using SEO

Search engine optimisation, the process of creating content for the web that will easily fall under the radar of search engines and therefore draw in more readers, has become an integral part of newsroom life. Many media outlets have been in on the act for a good few years, but only today has the BBC decided to latch on to this newsroom trend, increasing the length of its headlines on its news website, in the hope that this will generate more unique visitors to the site, the Guardian reported.

Much will be said and written about the reported news that Mr. Murdoch is close to signing a deal with Microsoft (source NPR), disallowing Google from searching and indexing his company’s content and getting paid by Microsoft for the search access.  We will hear more about how content is free or wants to be free, how it is commoditized and how people can get free content from somewhere else. The most vocal proponent of them all, Mr. Jeff Jarvis,  described WSJ’s move as, “it is suicidal”. At the other extreme, Mr. Murdoch described Google as, “stealing my content”.

The truth, however, lies somewhere in between.

On the content wants to be free argument:  This is an extreme position treating all contents as the same and treating all customers the same. The value of content is in the minds of the customers and it varies across segments. For instance, my WTP for WSJ opinion pieces is $0. There are news articles that add no unique value and hence by definition are commoditized. While other articles, even thought they have high value, fail to capture value because of alternative free means of accessing these articles (WSJ articles can be accessed for free through Google searches).

On customers don’t want to pay for content: It is a widely accepted notion that customers do not want to pay for access to content. There is no basis to these and any marketing research studies done are not rigorous enough. This is the very definition of Conventional Wisdom, and going against it will be seen as disastrous move.

On “it is suicidal”:   It definitely is not. WSJ still makes a great portion of its revenue from paid subscriptions. It takes a lot more Ads and CPM to get the same amount of revenue. For someone running one of the top sources of business information we should give WSJ the benefit of doubt that they did the revenue models and calculated loss of revenue from Google traffic. If they were not monetizing much of current traffic, it is not a devastating loss and it offers future revenue potential from subscriptions.

On the stealing argument: This is another extreme claim. What is true is Google can and does monetize search results with search Ads and it does not share those revenues with WSJ or with any other source. One thing Google or other search engines do is lowering customer’s reference price for the articles, preventing WSJ and others from capturing value. It is not that far off for Murdoch to get recover some of that by asking Google and Microsoft to pay for indexing access.

On charging for content: Charging for content starts with value,  communicating that value, and protecting that value through reference prices. How can you credibly communicate value of a newspaper or a Journal? WSJ is taking the approach of showing what is possible from reading, sometimes even drawing suspect causations based on correlations. Another example is Elsevier, which is communicating value of its online journals articles through by making (again somewhat suspect) causation arguments showing new research grant.  Both WSJ and Elsevier may be using causation argument when none exist but they are trying and spending resources on creating the value proposition while most others do not even know how to communicate theirs.

This is not a battle between Murdoch and Google or other search engines, this is the beginning of the efforts by content producers, those who create value,  to capture their fair share.

Uno no le cobra a los buscadores en internet por llevar gente a los artículos de tu sitio web, uno les paga para que esto ocurra.

You could make a movie from this! Now Microsoft is apparently offering to pay Murdoch to stop google from indexing his site and only allow Bing to search his site. So far, Murdoch’s crazy plan is definately paying off (for him) as somebody is going to give him some money.

The  stats however show that 74% of adults are still reading newspapers and that 71 million americans read them online (a huge growth from previous readership of 40Million).  So the slump in newspaper advertising cannot be attributed to a demise in readership (though it has reduced without a doubt) but rather to the shift in advertising spend. Here is my take on what is happening and why charging for news is quaint, but wont solve the problem:

1. advertising is about ROI. print is hard to measure, internet is easy to measure and thus perceived to be cheaper

2. the average marketing person is youngish, that makes them internet generation people who feel comfortable spending online versus older generation marketing people who felt more comfortable with newspapers

3. the classified category, traditionally 30% of newspaper revenue – has moved online primarily and dramatically fallen

4. consumers want news, not newspapers.

5. newspapers generally print yesterday’s news and havent innovated at all in the last 5 years. google has invested heavily in new products – (google has launched gmail, webmaster tools, google docs, orkut etc). based on R&D spend targetting the same advertiser dollar, who do you think will win

This seems like a bad deal for Microsoft, but they are trying something different. The question is – can they spend their way into beating google, or will this just be wasted cash?

Se non sei su Google, non esisti. Almeno nelle prime tre pagine. Altrimenti è oblio. E se Murdoch e News Corp. minacciano di uscire dalla pagine delle notizie di Google, condannandosi a essere un nano della rete, Mediaset pensa a farsi pagare i contenuti di proprietà che poi finiscono nelle carrellate di Youtube o di Google video. Essi non sanno la portata del danno che l’uscita dal più famoso motore di ricerca gli potrà portare. Non ne hanno idea. Confalonieri ha imbeccato il governo, sostenendo che esso debba farsi promotore di iniziative legislative a tutela della proprietà intellettuale. Mediaset non lascia Youtube, ma chiede di essere pagata, o di far pagare la visione dei propri contenuti, messi in rete dagli utenti della piattaforma. Ovvero chiede una legge fatta ad hoc. File sharing e streaming video mettono a nudo il loro passatismo. Devono ricorrere al divieto per proteggere le proprie posizioni dominanti. Murdoch minaccia di uscire da Google, ma per quanto potrà resistere? Mediaset punta tutto sul diritto d’autore, un diritto che oggi ha subito trasformazioni e sta moltiplicando le proprie forme, le quali attendono solo di essere normate.
E il governo? Il ministero della Gioventù, per mano del capo gabinetto Luigi Bobbio, ha preparato un documento in cui si afferma la necessità di forme alternative e estensive della proprietà intellettuale. Addirittura il ministro Meloni si è espressa dicendo che il diritto d’autore nell’era digitale non può essere difeso erigendo barriere, bensì puntare sulla qualità dei contenuti e sulla loro disponibilità in rete a prezzi accessibili. Certamente una non soluzione. Ciò non impedisce lo scambio libero fra utenti di un servizio web. Lo scambio e l’immediata fruibilità dell’informazione sono l’asse portante del web, che così si sostanzia e si rinnova. È esattamente questo aspetto che loro non comprendono e che invece dovrebbero cercare di fare proprio. Invece continuano a vivere di una concezione separata dei ruoli autore-editore-consumatore. Il web 2.0 rivoluziona i rapporti, rompe lo schema divisorio fra produttori di contenuti e semplici utilizzatori. Nel web 2.0 si è insieme produttori e consumatori, e il diritto d’autore nella sua concezione classica, ovvero la proprietà privata, si fa neutro.

• PI: Meloni: un nuovo diritto d’autore

  • Il ministro della Gioventù Giorgia Meloni torna sul tema Internet e conferma sostanzialmente le parole del suo capo gabinetto Luigi Bobbio, che nelle settimane scorse ha dato voce a un documento che offre un punto di vista molto interessante sul ruolo di Internet

  • una sorta di manifesto che tocca tutti i punti critici con cui è stato trattato in Italia il tema Internet dalle autorità, uno sguardo sempre e quasi solo esclusivamente volto alla pirateria

  • Ministro Meloni che proprio oggi affronta direttamente l’argomento: "Il diritto d’autore nell’era digitale non può essere tutelato erigendo barriere: Internet non si blocca alle frontiere"

  • necessità di "fornire prodotti di alta qualità e di facile accesso da parte di tutti a prezzi ragionevoli" e "valutare ed elaborare forme nuove di tutela del diritto d’autore"

  • sembrano spingere forme alternative di difesa della proprietà intellettuale: innanzitutto Creative Commons e Software Libero, ma anche riforma del funzionamento della SIAE

  • Nel documento di Bobbio si parlava già di contenuti di qualità, e si era affrontata la questione delle nuove forme televisive e della necessità, soprattutto per la Rai, di investigare i mezzi offerti da Internet su cui i professionisti della tv di stato sarebbero rimasti colpevolmente indietro

  • "Se sono stati investiti fiumi di denaro per la tecnologia-ponte (il digitale terrestre ndr) perché non ci si decide ad investire per le nuove generazioni che già – scriveva Bobbio – guardano sempre meno la TV?

• Confalonieri: sul Web serve copyright – LASTAMPA.it

  • I motori di ricerca attivi su Internet, da Youtube a Google, devono remunerare in qualche modo i contenuti che diffondono altrimenti chi produce questi contenuti non può più investire su essi. È in sintesi il monito che giunge dal presidente di Mediaset, Fedele Confalonieri

  • «Internet -spiega Confalonieri- si avvale di una parola magica che è free: se i vari Youtube e Google non riconoscono il valore della proprietà intellettuale non si può investire» sui prodotti.

  • «serve molta attenzione da parte dei regolatori, del governo, devono prendere a cuore questo problema»

• Appello a Google e Yahoo: rimuovete i contenuti di Mediaset, così capiranno che non conviene… – LASTAMPA.it

  • dichiarazione rilasciata ieri sera da Luca Nicotra (Segretario dell’associazione radicale «Agorà Digitale») e Marco Cappato (Presidente, Membro del Comitato Nazionale di Radicali Italiani)

  • «In un mercato in cui è chiaro a tutti che, a dispetto della retorica messa in campo dall’industria dei contenuti, il contributo di maggior valore deriva dalla connettività, e non dal contenuto, lascia sbigottiti l’appello lanciato al Governo da Fedele Confalonieri affinchè difenda aziende come Mediaset da Google, Youtube, Yahoo e altri fantomatici approfittatori. Anzi, più di un appello sembra una minaccia, considerando che, proprio ieri, Mediaset ha ribadito quanto sia centrale nella sua strategia la causa che essa stessa ha intentato contro Youtube e in cui rivendica un danno di 500 milioni di euro per violazione del diritto d’autore. Confalonieri cerca di difendere un sistema bloccato, in cui i cittadini sono semplicemente audience, e la scelta dei contenuti da trasmettere è fatta da coloro che, come lo stesso Confalonieri, hanno in mano la TV generalista. A questo punto ci appelliamo a Google e Yahoo chiedendo loro di rimuovere per almeno un mese i contenuti online del gruppo Mediaset dai loro indici. Un’azione drastica, ma potrebbe essere davvero l’unico modo per aiutare a far comprendere a coloro che difendono modelli ormai superati quanto la Rete ha cambiato l’economia, anche quella dei contenuti, e quanta parte dei ricavi degli stessi produttori derivino dalla comunità di utenti che modifica e condivide»

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.

hace un par de semanas Rupert Murdoch uno de los empresarios mas poderosos en Estados Unidos, dueño de empresas como : Fox, Sky,The Times etc. Comento en una entrevista la intención que tenia por desaparecer los contenidos que generan sus empresas en el buscador de Google.

El argumento fue que Google no pagaba por estos contenidos y los distribuía libremente para sus propios beneficios, por su parte Google fue directa y comento que si no quería que sus contenidos estuviesen en Google había métodos para que estos desaparecieran.

A partir de esta noticia, las opiniones alrededor de este caso no se hicieron esperar, sobre todo de aquellos que comparten la idea de que la información debe de ser libre y para todos, y no solo para unos cuantos que tengan dinero para poder acceder a ella.

Parece ser que Microsoft estuvo muy atento en la pequeña discusión entre Google y Murdoch, ya que según algunas noticias que se han soltado en Internet, Microsoft se ha estado reuniendo con Editoriales de gran envergadura para pedirles que retiren sus contenidos de Google y estos pasen a su buscador BING, pero claro para que este cambio ocurra, Microsoft estaría dispuesto a soltar dinero con tal de que tengan la exclusiva , de que ellos tienen los contenidos y no otros buscadores.

Negocios son negocios, y el dinero es el móvil que este tipo de empresas siguen comúnmente, pero se me hace una muy mala jugada por parte de Microsoft al querer competir con Google a golpe de billete, a pesar de que BING ha tenido un crecimiento aceptable desde su salida, nada garantiza que tener los derechos de estos contenidos resulte tener un gran beneficio para ellos, aun no se sabe si esta estrategia de Microsoft es real, y si así fuese, no se sabe que tan factible será, pero ojalá esta batalla entre Microsoft y Google, no se convierta en haber quien pone mas dinero dejando a un lado la calidad de sus productos.

Fuentes : Paidcontent y ALT1040

…more background? read this article!

Some see it as a bluff, or an attempt to cut a deal with Bing or some other search engine, others see it as the last gasps of a media mogul who just doesn’t get it and/or the desperate last throes of old media.  I heard that a year ago Rupert Murdoch had never done a Google search himself. That figures.

I love newspapers but some of them aren’t doing a great job of convincing me that I care. I loved reading the NY Times when I was there recently and bought it every morning and I’ve got a lot of time for the AGE but then I go there this week and find vitriolic opinion columns from sensationalists like Catherine Deveny or across town the same stuff from Andrew Bolt in the Herald-Sun.  It’s fun for language analysis practice for Year 12s, but you dont’ go there for insight, or even particularly good writing. Can a newspaper that has to be one thing to all people really work any more?

Truth is, when I wake up each morning I check my email and my Google Reader feeds before I check the newspaper online.  I follow 101 blog feeds daily, from people who are expert in their fields, who I respect, many of whom also write better than Bolt, Deveny and the rest. Try Scott McLeod, Derek Wenmoth, Don Tapscott or David Warlick on education, for a start. I could go on!

And I’m hopeful that a new era of open-ness has begun and that the genie is already out of the bottle in a democratisation of the media. We want access to the information that matters to us in exactly the format that works for us and I hope that Murdoch’s view of the world is fading.

I’m teaching the classic text Frankenstein to my literature class next year and have been trawling around for resources. One that struck me was a study guide on the text available as a web site you could visit, a PDF you could download or an Iphone App you could buy for $1.19. You can find it on Itunes.  It’s not anything particularly intuitive except that it understands the ubiquity around content now, and that we want choice in how we receive it.  The ABC seems to understand, they’ve been working hard at delivering their content in increasingly diverse ways, including on hand held devices.

I met with my publisher recently in planning a new text book for next year, maybe. We were talking about models of publishing and they’ve begun to move (slowly) toward a sort of print on demand model where you order a customised version of the book depending on the texts and contexts you’ve chosen to study. But what about making that same content available online? We’ve had a web site resource add-on for a while now, but I’m arguing for the book to be available in other ways too: to be read on the Kindle, downloaded and purchased in bits, even as an iphone app. It’s going to be interesting to see who catches us on quickest in all this; the slow ones aren’t likely to last.

I’ve been following the recent bluff and bluster from Rupert Murdoch with interest: ‘Google are ripping off my content’, ‘You can’t do this to me!’, ‘I’m taking my newspaper off the internet’, ‘Pay for view for news is the future’, stuff like that (I’m paraphrasing but you can do a Google News Search and get the exact quotes yourself; what am I, a journalist?)

Some see it as a bluff, or an attempt to cut a deal with Bing or some other search engine, others see it as the last gasps of a media mogul who just doesn’t get it and/or the desperate last throes of old media.  I heard that a year ago Rupert Murdoch had never done a Google search himself. That figures.

I love newspapers but some of them aren’t doing a great job of convincing me that I care. I loved reading the NY Times when I was there recently and bought it every morning and I’ve got a lot of time for the AGE but then I go there this week and find vitriolic opinion columns from sensationalists like Catherine Deveny or across town the same stuff from Andrew Bolt in the Herald-Sun.  It’s fun for language analysis practice for Year 12s, but you dont’ go there for insight, or even particularly good writing. Can a newspaper that has to be one thing to all people really work any more?

Truth is, when I wake up each morning I check my email and my Google Reader feeds before I check the newspaper online.  I follow 101 blog feeds daily, from people who are expert in their fields, who I respect, many of whom also write better than Bolt, Deveny and the rest. Try Scott McLeod, Derek Wenmoth, Don Tapscott or David Warlick on education, for a start. I could go on!

And I’m hopeful that a new era of open-ness has begun and that the genie is already out of the bottle in a democratisation of the media. We want access to the information that matters to us in exactly the format that works for us and I hope that Murdoch’s view of the world is fading.

I’m teaching the classic text Frankenstein to my literature class next year and have been trawling around for resources. One that struck me was a study guide on the text available as a web site you could visit, a PDF you could download or an Iphone App you could buy for $1.19. You can find it on Itunes.  It’s not anything particularly intuitive except that it understands the ubiquity around content now, and that we want choice in how we receive it.  The ABC seems to understand, they’ve been working hard at delivering their content in increasingly diverse ways, including on hand held devices.

I met with my publisher recently in planning a new text book for next year, maybe. We were talking about models of publishing and they’ve begun to move (slowly) toward a sort of print on demand model where you order a customised version of the book depending on the texts and contexts you’ve chosen to study. But what about making that same content available online? We’ve had a web site resource add-on for a while now, but I’m arguing for the book to be available in other ways too: to be read on the Kindle, downloaded and purchased in bits, even as an iphone app. It’s going to be interesting to see who catches us on quickest in all this; the slow ones aren’t likely to last.