Archive for October, 2007

Astonishing - 25m UK social network users, spending average 11 minutes a day on social networks

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

Britons spend an average of 5.8 hours a month on social networking sites — nearly twice that of any other European country
via Jonathan Richards (Times Online)

Britons are the ’social networking’ champions of Europe, displaying a far greater appetite for websites such as Facebook, MySpace and Bebo than fellow citizens on the continent. British internet users spent an average of 5.8 hours a month - about a 11 minutes a day - on such sites, in comparison with their nearest rivals the Germans, who spent 3.1 hours a month (6 minutes a day), according to research. The French, Spanish, and Italians all spend less than four minutes a day making ‘friend requests’ and ‘poking’ one another - the social networking equivalent of saying hello, the figures, from comScore, suggest.

More than three in four regular internet users in Britain - just under 25 million people - are now a member of a social networking site, and make an average of 23.3 visits to their ‘profile page’ a month.

The figures are skewed by those visit the sites most regularly, however. ‘Heavy users’ spend an average of 22.1 hours a month on their pages - visiting them more than 70 times - despite accounting for less than a fifth of the overall number.
By comparison ‘light users’ - who make up about a half of the total - spend just 18 minutes, presenting a challenge for marketers keen to exploit the amount of personal data collected by such networks and target new customers.

“The big question for companies at the moment is how can they use applications that are developed for social networking sites like Facebook for advertising purposes,” Rebecca Jennings, an analyst with Forrester, said.

Social networking sites allow members to build and interact with large groups of friends, as well as share content - including photos, videos and music - with one another. According to comScore, Bebo - a site for younger users - is now the most popular social network in Britain, with 10.7 million visitors, followed by MySpace, with 10.2 million. Facebook, despite more than tripling its reach in the past 6 months - from 2.7 million to 9 million - is in third place.

Comcast blocks some Internet traffic

Friday, October 19th, 2007

Via Yahoo, here, By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer Fri Oct 19, 9:15 AM ET

NEW YORK - Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
ADVERTISEMENT

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.

The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called “Net Neutrality” by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.

Comcast’s interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers.

Comcast, the nation’s largest cable TV operator and No. 2 Internet provider, would not specifically address the practice, but spokesman Charlie Douglas confirmed that it uses sophisticated methods to keep Net connections running smoothly.

“Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent,” he said.

Douglas would not specify what the company means by “access” — Comcast subscribers can download BitTorrent files without hindrance. Only uploads of complete files are blocked or delayed by the company, as indicated by AP tests.

But with “peer-to-peer” technology, users exchange files with each other, and one person’s upload is another’s download. That means Comcast’s blocking of certain uploads has repercussions in the global network of file sharers.

Comcast’s technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.

Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer — it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: “Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye.”

Matthew Elvey, a Comcast subscriber in the San Francisco area who has noticed BitTorrent uploads being stifled, acknowledged that the company has the right to manage its network, but disapproves of the method, saying it appears to be deceptive.

“There’s the wrong way of going about that and the right way,” said Elvey, who is a computer consultant.

Comcast’s interference affects all types of content, meaning that, for instance, an independent movie producer who wanted to distribute his work using BitTorrent and his Comcast connection could find that difficult or impossible — as would someone pirating music.

Internet service providers have long complained about the vast amounts of traffic generated by a small number of subscribers who are avid users of file-sharing programs. Peer-to-peer applications account for between 50 percent and 90 percent of overall Internet traffic, according to a survey this year by ipoque GmbH, a German vendor of traffic-management equipment.

“We have a responsibility to manage our network to ensure all our customers have the best broadband experience possible,” Douglas said. “This means we use the latest technologies to manage our network to provide a quality experience for all Comcast subscribers.”

The practice of managing the flow of Internet data is known as “traffic shaping,” and is already widespread among Internet service providers. It usually involves slowing down some forms of traffic, like file-sharing, while giving others priority. Other ISPs have attempted to block some file-sharing application by so-called “port filtering,” but that method is easily circumvented and now largely ineffective.

Comcast’s approach to traffic shaping is different because of the drastic effect it has on one type of traffic — in some cases blocking it rather than slowing it down — and the method used, which is difficult to circumvent and involves the company falsifying network traffic.

The “Net Neutrality” debate erupted in 2005, when AT&T Inc. suggested it would like to charge some Web companies more for preferential treatment of their traffic. Consumer advocates and Web heavyweights like Google Inc. and Amazon Inc. cried foul, saying it’s a bedrock principle of the Internet that all traffic be treated equally.

To get its acquisition of BellSouth Corp. approved by the Federal Communications Commission, AT&T agreed in late 2006 not to implement such plans or prioritize traffic based on its origin for two and a half years. However, it did not make any commitments not to prioritize traffic based on its type, which is what Comcast is doing.

The FCC’s stance on traffic shaping is not clear. A 2005 policy statement says that “consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice,” but that principle is “subject to reasonable network management.” Spokeswoman Mary Diamond would not elaborate.

Free Press, a Washington-based public interest group that advocates Net Neutrality, opposes the kind of filtering applied by Comcast.

“We don’t believe that any Internet provider should be able to discriminate, block or impair their consumers ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet,” said Free Press spokeswoman Jen Howard.

Paul “Tony” Watson, a network security engineer at Google Inc. who has previously studied ways hackers could disrupt Internet traffic in manner similar to the method Comcast is using, said the cable company was probably acting within its legal rights.

“It’s their network and they can do what they want,” said Watson. “My concern is the precedent. In the past, when people got an ISP connection, they were getting a connection to the Internet. The only determination was price and bandwidth. Now they’re going to have to make much more complicated decisions such as price, bandwidth, and what services I can get over the Internet.”

Several companies have sprung up that rely on peer-to-peer technology, including BitTorrent Inc., founded by the creator of the BitTorrent software (which exists in several versions freely distributed by different groups and companies).

Ashwin Navin, the company’s president and co-founder, confirmed that it has noticed interference from Comcast, in addition to some Canadian Internet service providers.

“They’re using sophisticated technology to degrade service, which probably costs them a lot of money. It would be better to see them use that money to improve service,” Navin said, noting that BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications are a major reason consumers sign up for broadband.

BitTorrent Inc. announced Oct. 9 that it was teaming up with online video companies to use its technology to distribute legal content.

Other companies that rely on peer-to-peer technology, and could be affected if Comcast decides to expand the range of applications it filters, include Internet TV service Joost, eBay Inc.’s Skype video-conferencing program and movie download appliance Vudu. There is no sign that Comcast is hampering those services.

Comcast subscriber Robb Topolski, a former software quality engineer at Intel Corp., started noticing the interference when trying to upload with file-sharing programs Gnutella and eDonkey early this year.

In August, Topolski began to see reports on Internet forum DSLreports.com from other Comcast users with the same problem. He now believes that his home town of Hillsboro, Ore., was a test market for the technology that was later widely applied in other Comcast service areas.

Topolski agrees that Comcast has a right to manage its network and slow down traffic that affects other subscribers, but disapproves of their method.

“By Comcast not acknowledging that they do this at all, there’s no way to report any problems with it,” Topolski said.

edocr aims to be YouTube of documents

Friday, October 19th, 2007

I saw this on Techcrunch UK, by Mike Butcher

UK-based edocr opens its doors officially today allowing anyone to upload documents. There are already US startups trying to become the ‘YouTube for documents’, notably Scribd and Docstoc and edocr does something similar, but with a twist.

Coming out of Manchester, edocr lets you upload your document and then allow people to download, share or embed it via a Flash interface on any website. It’s aimed at two types of users: publishers of documents and researchers. The twist is that while competitor sites tend to allow any old document to go up, edocr is going to just focus on any .doc or .pdf. So no spreadsheets or PowerPoints / presentations. This could mean they keep the ‘pool’ of documents relatively untainted by those terrible PP presentations.

Easily publishing documents online remains a problem more common than you’d think. You can spend a lot of time online looking for formal documents such as standard NDAs, official documents, you name it. Businesses spend a lot of time and money producing these documents, yet they barely register on search engines (blogs, are better at that!) and there is rarely a simple way for a reader to provide feedback on a document. So why isn’t there one ‘go-to’ site for documents which can be shared, searched, ranked and commented on?

That’s where these document sharing sites come in. As more documents are added by users the documents get ranked, commented on and shared on other sites. Because of this ‘crowd’ effect around the documents, the owners and publishers of the originals get invaluable feedback of their content, while providing a wealth of useful documents for any visitor. On edocr you can comment on a document as if it was a blog post, and even send it to Digg.

Interestingly, some US-based firms are already using edocr, such as Ariba. In the lead-up to this launch edocr, has for instance, been uploading as many documents as it can find about documents about EIPP (e-invoicing). Whatever turns you on I guess…

Future plans include special interest groups and CEO Manoj Ranaweera tells me the site should be able to build connectors to Opentext’s ECM packages, so that public facing documents can be published straight on to edocr.

Since launching 8 months ago, Scribd has raise $3.5 million from Redpoint Ventures. Meanwhile Docstoc, currently in private beta is going to be geared toward professions.

It remains to be seen how edocr - currently 100% self-funded but with a pretty experienced team - will do, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t have a very good chance in this arena.

Skype - MySpace partnership

Thursday, October 18th, 2007

Skype and MySpace — that just sounds like a match made in heaven.

The new partnership between the pair will soon allow MySpace members to dial up other users by simply clicking a button in their profile. Of course, this is assuming you can actually find the aforementioned button in all of the site’s clutter, but we digress. Starting in November, the service will reach users in some 20 countries around the globe, and while vanilla PC-to-PC calls will obviously be gratis, “premium options” such as personal phone numbers, voice mail, call forwarding and PC-to-landline / mobile calls will have an undisclosed pricetag attached. Welcome to a whole new realm of shock callin’.
via Engadget

My comment - I like this whole mashup method of quickly offering new features for users. Why develop it all yourself when you can ‘assemble’ the best solution like this. When you consider what the aim is, to deliver user-winning features quickly, why would you not do it this way. The old view of ‘you must build it all yourself’ is rapidly sinking in todays world of mashups. Why? well its mostly due to the different ways that we now monetise our products. We used to sell our services, so we always wanted to build it ourselves so that we had control of the cash-cow and so that we didn’t need to hand out a slice of the money. But today, we launch features for free, in oder to attract users that we monetise in indirect ways, like ad revenue. The dynamic is diferrent and mashups let us achieve our commercial ends more quickly, better, and cheaper.

YouTube begins public testing of anti-piracy tools

Thursday, October 18th, 2007

YouTube, the Google Inc video-sharing site has said that it has begun public testing of a long-awaited video-matching database in its latest bid to ward off lawsuits over video piracy.

The world’s largest online video-sharing site said the YouTube Video Identification technology is a database that stores reference files of original video content and associated ownership rights and compares it to any video YouTube users attempt to upload.

“We will be doing complete file scans,” YouTube Product Manager David King told reporters on a conference call to discuss the expanded video ID test. “A movie studio can give us a three-hour movie and we will scan it in its entirety.”

YouTube had previously said it had begun a private test of the video-identification technology with nine media companies, including several movie studios. It has named only Walt Disney Co and Time Warner Inc as joining the test.

YouTube has come under fire from several traditional media companies that say it has dragged its heels in offering reliable ways to identify video clips uploaded by regular users without permission. In March, Viacom Inc filed one of several suits against YouTube, seeking $1 billion in damages.

Asked by a reporter whether Viacom was taking part in the test while continuing to pursue its federal suit against Google and YouTube, officials of YouTube reiterated that they only had permission to talk about partners Disney and Time Warner.

“Any other discussions have been under NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) and I can’t confirm who we have been talking to,” YouTube Chief Counsel Zahavah Levine told reporters. An NDA is a legally binding agreement not to disclose company secrets

Viacom’s General Counsel Mike Fricklas said of YouTube’s move to begin public test of the technology: “We’re delighted that Google appears to be stepping up to its responsibility and ending the practice of profiting from infringement.”

YouTube’s attorney said the new technology goes beyond what the company is required to do by law to protect copyrights and that its efforts to help copyright holders had no bearing on the lawsuits against it.

The YouTube Video Identification technology is proprietary to Google, officials said. YouTube already works with a private company, Audible Magic, to offer audio-identification tools to detect unlawful uses of music inside YouTube videos.

This was the latest in a series of moves YouTube has made to ward off widespread piracy of popular video programming and help copyright holders protect their programs.

YouTube has also adopted a technology that identifies exact duplicates of video files, a 10-minute limit on video clips users can upload to the site and an automated process for media owners to notify it of pirated videos.

Levine said her company would consider making its database available to other online video sites instead of keeping the data that media owners provide to itself, a move that would eliminate the need for media content owners to work with different copyright protection systems on dozens of Web video sites.

“We are building this with the idea of opening it up and making it more general over time,” she said of the potential to allow third-party video sites to check its reference database.

MTV Networks-owner Viacom has charged the company with “massive intentional copyright infringement” after demanding the removal of clips of its popular shows “The Colbert Report” and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.”
via http://www.ciol.com/

While YouTube is pioneering its own technology, others have been experimenting with similar technology from players like Web Sheriff, Gracenote , Vobile, and Audible Magic.

UPDATE - this via Engadget…

YouTube unveiled YouTube Video Identification, a system designed to prevent copyrighted videos from making their way onto the site without the consent of the owner. Rather cunningly, YouTube requires that content owners send in a master copy of all their copyrighted content — y’know, so they can cross reference it against uploads (nothing to do with Google’s aim of indexing everything, ever … no.) Any data that matches the reference data can be deleted automatically, but only if the content owner says so. According to YouTube chief counsel Zahavah Levine, there will be a way for content owners to set it up so YouTube can scan content on other servers — removing the requirement for a master copy to be uploaded to YouTube — although Levine said that method “would be more difficult.” For who, Google, or the TV and movie studios?

DRM continues to tumble - now artists are rebelling

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

The Inevitable March of Recorded Music Towards Free
from TechCrunch by Michael Arrington
(Techcrunch article is here)

2007 is turning out to be a terrible year for the music industry. Or rather, a terrible year for the the music labels.

The DRM walls are crumbling. Music CD sales continue to plummet rather alarmingly. Artists like Prince and Nine Inch Nails are flouting their labels and either giving music away or telling their fans to steal it. Another blow earlier this week: Radiohead, which is no longer controlled by their label, Capitol Records, put their new digital album on sale on the Internet for whatever price people want to pay for it.

The economics of recorded music are fairly simple. Marginal production costs are zero: Like software, it doesn’t cost anything to produce another digital copy that is just as good as the original as soon as the first copy exists, and anyone can create those copies (meaning there is perfect competition and zero barriers to entry). Unless effective legal (copyright), technical (DRM) or other artificial impediments to production can be created, simple economic theory dictates that the price of music, like its marginal cost, must also fall to zero as more “competitors” (in this case, listeners who copy) enter the market. The evidence is unmistakable already. In April 2007 the benchmark price for a DRM-free song was $1.29. Today it is $0.89, a drop of 31% in just six months.

P2P networks just exacerbate the problem (or opportunity) further, giving people a way to speed up the process of creating free copies almost to the point of being ridiculous. Today, a billion or so songs are downloaded monthly via BitTorrent, mostly illegally.

Eventually, unless governments are willing to take drastic measures to protect the industry (such as a mandatory music tax), economic theory will win out and the price of music will fall towards zero.

When the industry finally capitulates and realizes that they can no longer charge a meaningful amount of money for digital recorded music, a lot of good things can happen.

First, other revenue sources can and will be exploited, particularly live music, merchandise and limited edition physical copies of music. The signs are already there - the live music industry is booming this year, and Radiohead is releasing a special edition box set of their new album for £40.00 simultaneous to the release of their “free” digital album.

Second, artists and labels will stop thinking of digital music as a source of revenue and start thinking about it as a way to market their real products. Users will be encouraged (even paid, as radio stations are today) to download, listen to and share music. Passionate users who download music from the Internet and share it with others will become the most important customers, not targets for ridiculous lawsuits.

The price of music will likely not fall in the near term to absolutely zero. Charging any price at all requires the use of credit cards and their minimum fees of $0.20 or more per transaction, for example. And services like iTunes and Amazon can continue to charge something for quality of service. With P2P networks you don’t really know what you are getting until you download it. It could, for example, be a virus. Or a poor quality copy. Many users will be willing to pay to avoid those hassles. But as long as BitTorrent exists, or simple music search engines like Skreemr allow users to find and download virtually any song in seconds, they won’t be able to charge much.

Update: There are some blog responses to this post that are, inevitably, complaining about fairness. Arguing against basic economics makes about as much sense as arguing against gravity. Zero marginal cost + competition (anyone can create a copy of a song) results in a zero price, unless government creates artificial barriers to a free market.

—-
See also my other DRM-related posts here, here, and here

Zipidee Wants To Be THE Marketplace For Digital Goods

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

In 1995 eBay sold a laser pointer online and kicked off the online marketplace for selling physical goods. As networks improved in the intervening years, the idea of what can be bought and sold online has grown to include digital goods, such as music, e-books, and videos as well. Zipidee wants to be a market for those digital goods, and is expected to launch some time in the next week.

It’s by no means a new concept, there are several sites out there that trade in digital bits: Payloadz, Tradebit, e-Junkie, Lulu, Edgeio, and more. eBay already sells digital goods, with delivery often handled through these third party sites. iTunes can also sell your content, but requires an approved label if you want to get paid.

However, Zipidee will offer considerably more control over pricing and distribution than these other sites. Merchants on Zipidee will be able to create their own virtual store where they can list their digital wares for sale on the site directly or across Zipidee’s website widgets. It’s an ideal setup for anyone selling an instructional video series or their own audiobook.

zipidee_player.pngAudio and video can be uploaded to the site to be rented or bought at whatever price the creator wishes and consumed via downloads or streams. Other services often only allow downloads.

You will be able to track the sale of their good in real time and adjust the price accordingly using their analytics dashboard. Creators will also have the option of protecting their product with Zipidee’s own DRM system. DRMed goods come with a license to play the media through their web or downloadable player on any computer with your Zipidee credentials.

Zipidee will make money through a $1 listing fee (waived to start) and roughly 80/20 split of the purchase price, like Lulu (Zipidee takes a smaller cut for higher priced goods).

To start, Zipidee will focus on digitizing the kind of media now sold at conferences and trade shows as DVDs or Books. For launch, they’re digitizing materials from a series of consultants and speakers such as DreamUniversity and MightyVentures who currently sell millions of dollars in physical merchandise directly to their customers.

Yet, there’s still a big question over whether and where people will buy “long-tail” digital content. Zipidee is fighting the trend toward free digital content (wikipedia, 5 min) and people are reluctant enough to even pay for big-media’s content (most songs on iPods do not come from iTunes). There is also a question as to whether the best way to sell this content is horizontally in a single marketplace, or vertically by topic. There are a great number of digital content verticals out there already that could serve as points of sale for independently produced content (DocStoc, Scribd, Amie Street, 5 Min, Snocap). We’ll have to see how it all pans out when Zipidee launches.

via Techcrunch

Another way for users to make money from their videos

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

Blinx the video search engine, has launched their advertising program to allow publishers to earn revenue on their uploads. Much like AdSense for YouTube, which was revealed earlier this week, Blinkx’s solution matches ads contextually with videos. Ads are displayed either in a transparent window at the bottom of the video screen, or in a banner that sits on top of it. We first learned of Blinkx’s program earlier this summer.

In addition to Google/YouTube, Blinkx joins many other companies that offer publishers a way to earn money from video. VideoEgg, AdBrite, and BrightRoll all offer similar programs, with dozens of other companies also competing for a share of the quickly growing video advertising market.

See Also: 10 Online Video Ad Competitors Compared

via Mashable

Major label releases major artist’s albums DRM-free

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

EMI has released George Harrison’s solo catalog online, with an initial offering of 9 albums, and the rest to follow next year. Some of the albums available now include “All Things Must Pass,” “Thirty Three & 1/3,” “George Harrison” and “Somewhere In England.” With this release, all four Beatles’ solo catalogs are now available digitally.

This is the first time Harrison’s solo albums will be made available in digital format on a worldwide scale. You can purchase Harrison’s albums from any online retailer that sells EMI content, including iTunes, Amazon and Wal-Mart. As with most EMI content, Harrison’s albums will be DRM-free.

While EMI has decided to go the DRM-free route with its music, there’s still the lingering court case its Capitol Records has won against Jammie Thomas, which she has appealed. There is also a growing number of artists that are encouraging the free distribution and file-sharing for their content, with hopes of making up the cash with peripherals and concerts.

via Mashable

See also my other DRM-related posts here, here, here, and here

Whitelabel social network gets funded

Thursday, October 11th, 2007

MyLifeBrand, the recently launched social network that offers a private label solution as well as several other tools for online community-building, has received $750,000 in seed money from an undisclosed source. The company is still looking to raise more in another round, for an unspecified amount.

This particular social networking tool has cast a particularly large net, covering several bases and many aspects of online social networking. It’s got a profile aggregation tool, a group-formation tool, private label options and more. In this way, it looks to appeal to individuals that already have existing profiles on other networks, those that would like to create their own network, businesses that are looking to offer an online group for networking purposes, and businesses that would like to incorporate social networking modules into their existing website.

Via Mashable