It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood - for another copyright debate

Bill C32 - if you are a Canadian here is why you should care:  

Liberals Preparing C-32 Amendments on Digital Locks & Fair Dealing

If you have ever made a copy of recording, a movie or a TV show, you may have broken the law.  The debate over fair dealing and blatant piracy has been around for a long time.  It shifts as technology changes but the core issue is the same, money and control.  When the VCR first appeared as a device to "time-shift" programming, networks lobbyists insisted on regulations, levies and protection.  One who saw the value of time-shifting as a great way to share information with more viewers was Mr. Rogers of the PBS program Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.

The following is taken from a Globe and Mail article "How the new copyright bill will affect Canadian culture"

Traditional Media's Last Offensive

First off a clarifying statement:  I do not have any affiliation, investment or personal stake in Google.  I do not even have an adsense account.  I am a user of their services like gmail, apps and search.  I am a bit concerned about their size and influence but no more or less than other companies like Microsoft, Apple Intel etc.


This post is not at all intended to come to the defense of Google, (like they need my help), it is  however intended to point out why I believe they are being inaccurately attacked in the traditional media.  Specifically as it pertains to their newest foray into what is described as Google TV.

Not-MySpace... FaceSpace maybe?

It was not that long ago that I heard a net savvy commentator warn that MySpace should be wary of the rapid growth that was making it the place on the Internet for "social interaction". Shortly after hearing this comment NewsCorp announced that it was paying $580 million in cash to acquire Intermix Media Inc., a Los Angeles-based company whose chief asset is MySpace.com. Shortly after that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction. It looked at the time as though Rupert Murdoch had stolen MySpace in comparison.

I found myself thinking about the comment I had heard. The point was simple, MySpace was a big deal because it was the "new - new thing" but what would happen when the cool early adopters did not want to be hanging around in the same "Space" as every other garage band and social network newbie? These mavens would go looking for other cool hangouts to adopt and make these the happening scene to be a part of.

Along comes Facebook: 550 million users later MySpace is all but forgotten and finally has no alternative but to concede that in order to survive MySpace must partner with Facebook.
Yet again, we see a Media Mogul wade into the online space and fail. Although MySpace is not officially dead, this has to be seen as a half billion dollar failure. Under NewsCorp's direction MySpace languished, it could not reinvent itself or sustain the cool persona it had once relied on to recruit new members. Was it doomed to die this kind of a death from the start? Perhaps but YouTube seems to have maintained some relevance and Facebook is always coming up with new gimmicks good or bad.

It would seem that the cyber world's bon vivant yesterday is tomorrows dumpster diver looking for table scraps. Just when something becomes hip and cool, it is no longer worth belonging to. Will Facebook and YouTube fall upon a similar laissez-faire? Time will tell. Meanwhile, we should learn from casualties of the online social network space. Even though the term has just recently entered our digital lexicon there is enough evidence of more failures to come. I am betting Foursquare is the next to go down.

In summary a fad is still a fad and recognizing the online equivalent is not that difficult. Using these fads as tools to create awareness of your product, service and or message is fine. Building your entire strategy around them would seem dubious at best.

The Hubris of Traditional Media

There is a lot to be said for wisdom and expertise. In most cases it requires many years to gain the knowledge that formulates the sage advise that lends credibility to one's name.



On the other hand those years of experience can sometimes become an anchor or maybe even one's security blanket. This is especially evident in areas that are experiencing rapid change and paradigm shifts. Take the traditional media industry for example.

Mobile Device Security - Market War Tactic?

When one talks about the Mobile Device marketplace it literally refers to a billion plus units. Those numbers obviously equate to enormous sums of capital, so the stakes in this game are astronomical.

The high rollers; RIM, Apple (device makers with OS) and Google (Android OS).

• RIM staked out high ground and put the "crack" in every business person's blackberry.
• Apple made their positioning statement "No Flash on iPhone or iPad"
• Google released Android as the Open Source OS, which was adopted by HTC and others

In the last 90 days, RIM has had to bend to the Indian government's request to make their data more accessible. Apple has come under fire for trying to assert omnipotent control over mobile content distribution, as they maintained the "no-flash - not ever" policy. Google announced Google TV and Android is now in Sony's HDTVs, all the while the OS has gained market share faster than anyone would have predicted.

So the stage is set, let the battle begin: