If you’re going to try to spin a story, a little more thought into the underlying concepts might be in order. Particularly since, IMHO, the music industry’s current problems have only been revealed by technological developments rather than caused by them [via Machinist]: Silicon Valley’s hippy values ‘killing music industry’ — pdf
U2’s manager yesterday called on artists to join him in forcing the “hippy” technology and internet executives he blames for the collapse of the music industry to help save it.
Paul McGuinness, who has plotted the rise of the Irish group over 30 years, said technology gurus in Silicon Valley such as Apple’s Steve Jobs and Microsoft’s Bill Gates had profited from rampant online piracy without doing anything to stop it.
“I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P [peer to peer] thief and on to the multibillion dollar industries that benefit from these tiny crimes,” he said.
See also this FT article echoing the currrent IFPI (and AT&T) position: U2 manager urges ISPs to help fight web piracy — pdf
Also, related: Music executive: business is not so bad, actually (pdf) and Music industry finds the solution to its pirate troubles – give everything away (pdf)
For now, anyway: EU court: Downloaders can stay private — pdf
Record labels and film studios cannot demand that telecommunications companies hand over the names and addresses of people who are suspected of sharing copyright-protected music and movies online, the EU’s top court ruled Tuesday.
But European Union nations could — if they want — introduce rules to oblige companies to hand over personal data in civil cases, the European Court of Justice said.
The court upheld the Spanish telecom company Telefonica SA’s right to refuse to hand over information that would identify who had used the file-sharing program Kazaa to distribute copyright material owned by members of Promusicae, a Spanish trade group for film and music producers.
A little IPR gamesmanship (arrogance?) from an acknowledged master: Synthetic Genome: Signed, Sealed, Decoded
Dr. Venter announced last week in the journal Science that his team had become the first to synthesize the complete DNA of a bacterium. He revealed that the genome had five “watermarks,” sequences of genetic code that would spell words using the letters for the amino acids that would be produced by the DNA.
With echoes into other domains of user-created content: Can a Sandwich Be Slandered?
The dispute over an ad is fairly standard — companies often sue one another over advertising claims — but the video contest raises a novel legal question: Quiznos did not make the insulting submissions, so should it be held liable for user-generated content created at its behest?
If the answer is yes, that could bring a quick death to these popular contests, advertising executives say. Consumer brands like Doritos, Dove, Toyota and Heinz have run promotions of this sort because they generate publicity, usually at a low cost to the advertiser, and sometimes lead to clever spots that work well on television. But the Subway lawsuit, which seeks financial and punitive damages, seems to open a Pandora’s box.
“Let’s just hope that as collateral damage it doesn’t kill the entire genre of competitive advertising,” said Brad Brinegar, chief executive of McKinney, an ad agency in Durham, N.C., that does not work with Subway or Quiznos.
In its lawsuit, Subway contends that the consumer videos — which were posted at a site Quiznos had set up called meatnomeat.com, as well as on iFilm — contained “literally false statements” and depicted Subway in a “disparaging manner.”
An uneasy marriage of psychology, sociology and commerce: Online Dating – Compatibility Testing
Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. Their parents, sometimes assisted by astrologers and matchmakers, supervised courtship until customs changed in the West because of what was called the Romeo and Juliet revolution. Grown-ups, leave the kids alone.
But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.
[…] As the matchmakers compete for customers — and denigrate each other’s methodology — the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game. On the one hand, they are skeptical, because the algorithms and the results have not been published for peer review. But they also realize that these online companies give scientists a remarkable opportunity to gather enormous amounts of data and test their theories in the field. EHarmony says more than 19 million people have filled out its questionnaire.
[…] Does this method actually work? In theory, thanks to its millions of customers and their fees (up to $60 a month), eHarmony has the data and resources to conduct cutting-edge research. It has an advisory board of prominent social scientists and a new laboratory with researchers lured from academia like Dr. Gonzaga, who previously worked at a marriage-research lab at U.C.L.A.
So far, except for a presentation at a psychologists’ conference, the company has not produced much scientific evidence that its system works. It has started a longitudinal study comparing eHarmony couples with a control group, and Dr. Buckwalter says it is committed to publishing peer-reviewed research, but not the details of its algorithm. That secrecy may be a smart business move, but it makes eHarmony a target for scientific critics, not to mention its rivals.