A computer disk that the Minnesota Republican Party prepared to support a ban on gay marriage has another purpose: gathering data on the politics of the people who view it.
And that’s stirred up a technological tempest on the Internet and among Democrats who say the disk will improperly gather data from people who run it on their computers. Privacy experts say they’re concerned that the GOP won’t adequately warn users that it’s collecting the data, and they worry where the information will end up.
But GOP officials said the final version of the CD that’s due to be mailed soon to hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans will contain a notice that the information gathered may be used by the party.
A growing number of radio listeners are encountering similar interference — hisses, whistles or static — on their favorite AM stations. The problem for WTRI began about a year ago, when Bonneville International Corp.’s WTOP, the AM station at 1500, began using a digital signal that interfered with WTRI’s analog signal in some broadcast areas. It’s one of the unexpected consequences of the radio industry’s transition to digital broadcasts.
Digital radio is touted as broadcast radio’s golden ticket, a technology that allows broadcasters to squeeze more stations into frequencies that currently hold just one. Advocates say the technology will allow radio to better compete with niche-oriented products like Internet radio and with other entertainment technologies, like iPods.
Big radio companies, such as Clear Channel Communications Inc. and CBS Corp.’s CBS Radio, have raced to embrace digital broadcasting, adding digital signals and rolling out new programming. But that has left behind many smaller AM stations that are still broadcasting only an analog signal. They are experiencing so-called side-channel interference — a phenomenon brought on in part by the fact that AM stations are packed tightly onto the dial, with only 10 kilohertz separating each one. (The problem doesn’t affect FM stations much because they reside 200 kilohertz away from each other.)
The AM stations most affected are those whose neighboring stations — nearby on the dial — add a digital signal. In most cases, including Mr. Rizer’s, the interference doesn’t stretch into a station’s core coverage area, as defined in its Federal Communications Commission license. But in fringe areas, signals can be fuzzy, or lost entirely.
[…] Critics question why Ibiquity’s technology is the only terrestrial digital-radio technology approved by the FCC.(Digital radio transmitted by satellite is a separate issue.) Ibiquity’s IBOC technology “allows…our domestic radio industry to transition to a digital radio future without requiring more spectrum,” says Peter Doyle, chief of the audio division at the FCC. That advantage more than makes up for any shortcomings, he says.
One critic is Leonard Kahn, a New York-based radio engineer and patent lawyer who has developed a hybrid digital-radio system for AM — Kahn Cam-D — that he says is better than the IBOC system, in large part because it doesn’t cause interference on neighboring stations. Several stations around the country have bought the Kahn system to boost their signals. Last month in federal court in New York, Mr. Kahn filed a lawsuit against Ibiquity, along with Clear Channel, alleging antitrust violations. Clear Channel declined to comment because it hasn’t yet seen the suit. A Ibiquity spokeswoman said “we are in the process of reviewing it.”
The Justice Department has served or is expected to serve the nation’s four major music companies with subpoenas stemming from an investigation of online music pricing, said sources at the companies, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The subpoenas mirror a probe launched last year by New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer.
Spitzer is examining clauses in music label contracts with online music services, such as Apple Computer Inc.’s iTunes Music Store, that guarantee competing labels get the same prices for their music.
Some critics suggest that the clauses threaten the legitimate market for online music just as it is taking off, potentially raising the standard 99-cent price customers pay for tunes.
Music executives believe that they will prevail, citing similar clauses in other industries.
Yet for all their success in television and movies, they are grappling with a fundamental question: What defines a hit on the Internet?
[…] That confusion became all the more apparent Thursday when Yahoo Inc., an early favorite to navigate the complex 21st century media landscape, said it would scale back efforts to create original entertainment offerings. The decision was a turnaround for Lloyd Braun, the former ABC television executive hired in 2004 to run the company’s Santa Monica-based Yahoo Media Group.
For months, Braun spread the word that he wanted to capture mass audiences by producing new Web programming to be seen only on Yahoo. With Thursday’s shift, Braun acknowledged that his views about what it took to succeed online had changed.
“Our focus is not doing a string of one-off hits like the TV model,” said Yahoo spokeswoman Joanna Stevens, who added that the company would instead highlight content created by its millions of users as well as serve as an online distributor for traditional media companies.
The most successful Internet companies have grown rich by exploiting other people’s content — without paying for it.
AOL prospered as its members filled chat rooms. EBay thrives by selling other people’s stuff. Teens create the pages on News Corp.’s MySpace. Yahoo! and Google index all this content, and much more.
The creators of content have not fared nearly as well as the Internet has grown. Think about the music industry, or big-city newspapers or even Penthouse magazine, which went bankrupt in part because so much “adult” content can be found for free online.
An unfolding legal battle between Perfect 10, an “adult” magazine, and Google is all about who gets to profit from content on the Web. […]
[…] Some lawyers argue that merely posting material online gives search engines like Google an “implied license” to use it. Schwimmer, the independent legal expert, asks: “If you put up content on your Web site, and you don’t password protect it, what do you expect is going to happen?”
It’s hard to know what to think about all this. As an Internet user, I love Google. I’ve done dozens of Google searches to research this story. I’m a fan of Gmail and Google Earth, and I’m even a small advertiser on Google — I’ve bought keywords (like my name) to attract traffic to my own Web site.
But I make a living by writing, and it’s plain to see what the Internet is doing to print media. Google News is a computer program. Real news gathering requires reporters and editors. The guys behind the Perfect 10 lawsuit may be doing the other media companies a favor.
Technical glitches by Microsoft and the digital music device makers have hampered Napster Inc.’s ability to close the gap with Apple’s iTunes, the dominant online music service, Napster’s chief executive said on Tuesday.
“There is no question that their execution has been less than brilliant over the last 12 months,” Napster Chairman and Chief Executive Chris Gorog said at the Reuters Global Technology, Media and Telecoms Summit in New York.
“Our business does rely on Microsoft’s digital rights management software and our business model also relies on Microsoft’s ecosystem of device manufacturers,” he added.
Amanda Palmer hardly fits the profile of an Internet outlaw, but her obsession with the ABC show “Lost” makes this self-described “bubbly, nutty mum” the television industry’s worst nightmare.
Like thousands of other British fans, the 30-year-old personal assistant can’t bear to wait the nine months it can take for new “Lost” shows to air in England. So, soon after the closing credits roll in America, she downloads each episode off file-sharing networks.
And most alarming to TV industry executives, Palmer admits not a twinge of guilt.
“It’s TV, isn’t it?” she said. “It would probably be different if it was a movie. If it is free on everybody’s TV, why worry about it?”
The $60-billion TV industry has a simple answer to Palmer’s question: because the future of free TV may depend on it.
[…] In some ways, the industry’s dilemma boils down to this: how to convince consumers that you can steal something that is perceived to be widely available free of charge. The half-century-old business model of subsidizing TV production by selling commercial time to advertisers is invisible to the audience.
“Unlike downloading a Hollywood film, which I think everyone intuitively knows is a clear violation of the copyright, people do not have that sharp line, that distinction, in their minds when they download free TV,” said Garland of BigChampagne.