I don't know if anyone has seen the commercial for Sterling airlines on television lately - but the song in that video is brilliant and the group behind it is equally brilliant - with a terrible name. The commercial is here by the way. The group is called Bang gang, their from iceland and make really good pop music. I have been listening to them for the past couple of days. Their Myspace is here, where they have four songs that you can stream. I really recommend downloading there latest album.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Discussion: communitys
First of all I would like to start by saying that I will discuss online-communitys in this post and that I have been trying to get this post posted for a while now but I was not able to log in. My own experience in online-communitys is not that good, which has to do with the fact that I do not really like communitys where you have to register to see the material – which leads to the question about the difference between gated and open communitys. As I see it almost all communitys are in some way gated, since there is always some sort of registration. I do not see a big difference in appearance when it comes to gated and open communitys, but there is a difference in the attitude from the user. A user of an open community might be as serious as one in a gated community, but as I see it there is a greater responsibility in a gated community. If for example anyone can write what they want in a forum, then you will have the problem with people spamming and arguing in a sense which is not good for a community. This has a lot to do with how long the user has been in a certain community. Here I see a problem. I have many times felt that I do not want to join a community solely because there is no acceptance for new users. It could for example be so called “Stupid questions” – but as I see you have to have the right to ask these questions before you learn the system. When it comes to quality of course there most likely is a higher quality in gated communitys, but it has more to do with the users than the community itself or even the subject which it surrounds.
When it comes to communitys where you pay to gain access to certain material or to get higher ranking I do feel that these communitys in a one way is better, but there is also a feeling that sometimes people just pay for something which could have been for free. That the users that want to be part of the community have to pay, since this is what the community is all about. For myself I can of course relate to Xbox-live – which is Microsoft’s online platform for games on their gaming system. Thing is that there you have an automatic silver membership, but if you want to gain access to online gaming and download demos and so on you have to pay for a gold membership. As I see it, there really isn’t any reason having a silver or gold membership, since if you want to get the online experience, you need the gold one. Basically if you’re not interested in playing online, then you wouldn’t plug in the broadband cable. Paying for a membership does give the user more motivation, but again it is about the commitment you have for the community that is going to make the difference – whether your commitment is money or anything else.
Now for the quality versus quantity question – it is a bit like asking the question about the meaning of life, there is easy answers and there is extremely deep one’s which would take years to come up with. It all comes down to how you define quality and quantity. It also depend on what you focus is. Is it the interface, is it the people or perhaps the overall experience? For me it is about the overall experience – I can for example not like all the users or even hate some if the experience is right. That is actually the case with Xbox-live. I play with the friends on my friendslist, but apart from that I just don’t care.
When it comes to quantity I personally prefer smaller communitys simply because it is easier to keep track of everyone, but then again it depends on why you are there. Myspace is a good example of a community that is far too big. From the beginning it was more or less an underground community for underground artists. Today it has grown to become a huge community with millions of users. I used to like Myspace, I was there everyday listening to new music and sharing my own. Now days I visit it maybe once a week, just because I feel that I have too. Myspace is dying – not because of its users but by spammers, old profiles and most of all the lack of ability to reborn itself. You still need a Myspace if you’re in the music industry, since it has replaced the demo, but at the same time this is mainly because there isn’t any alternative. I don’t go to Myspace for new music anymore, since there really isn’t easy to browse among the massive amount of profiles. If I may use a cliché: it is like finding a needle in a haystack. It feels like Myspace is a graveyard for old profiles as well as bands that think that just because they’re on Myspace they are destined to make it in the music industry. Now days I found music somewhere else and perhaps go to Myspace to see if there are more songs from a specific artist.
To be able to control a community you have to have rules – it is essential. After that I just feel that any form of reprimand that is necessary to control the community should be used. I do agree with my friend on this one – a combination is probably the most effective.
Online relationships are a tricky question, since they in many ways will lead to relationships which may also be part of your everyday life. I don’t draw a line between online and IRL-relationships – in theory. Since you can always be connected nowadays, online relationships are in a way more real in the sense that many of these relationships can be reached through computers or mobile/cell phones. I suppose that it is also the reason why people feel attractive to them, since you just as easily can disappear by going offline. It is easy to see the person on the other side as just a fictional idea and not a real person. In real life relationships there is a higher form of commitment – you can’t just walk away and even if you can it would hurt more. I ask myself where I cross the line from being in an online relationship to where I consider the relationship to be real. I am not talking about relationships as in a “boy meets girl situation” – I am talking in general terms. My conclusion is that when people I meet online make it from their forum and into my private sphere – such as mobile/cell phones or messaging services – I consider them real, which is kind of ironic since these tools are digital too. I suppose that this is how the future will look, that the higher our connectivity gets the more will the blurry line between real and digital relations become more… blurry.
When it comes to media in these new forums, such as World of Warcraft and Second Life – I do feel that the potential in these markets are great if you figure out how to use them in a clever way. That is from a marketing perspective. I am afraid that it will become like Myspace – that you put too much energy in just being there then on using it right. Say that a company would use World of Warcraft in a commercial way – I think that they would just take advantage of being there first then to use it as a marketing tool and when people understand that it is someone using it use media to further increase the focus. I also think it inevitable that old media has to fuse with new media – since people is not going to abandon new media. Again in the end it is about connectivity.
I have already looked upon Facebook and its rules and regulations. I would like to look on two more communities that I am part of. The first one I have mention – that is Xbox-live. The document clearly states – like any other document of that kind – that it is I as a user that will oblige to any changes in the service and that it is for non-commercial use. Also that it is the user that has the responsibility for the account. This pretty much is what is expected. When it comes to how you leave the service you have to call Microsoft’s support. I have much to say about their support, but I think that’ll be a later post. Let’s just say that all my language knowledge from Xbox-live – especially swearwords – comes in handy when calling there sometimes.
The next segment is even more fun since it involves what you can and can not do while using the service – that is: playing online. Basically it says that you can’t harass anyone online – and my question is: has anyone who wrote this text actually played online? Sure for most parts my online experience has been nothing but good – but that doesn’t mean that there has been harassment and inappropriate language. It happens every time I go online. Most of the time I have also been playing a game which clearly states that you need to be 18 years of age to play – and what do I hear on the other end of my headset? Correct – I hear a swearing, for most part, annoying 7-12 year old that tries to prove something with his gaming by telling everyone how good he is and that the rest of us are idiots. Basically everyone in that particular room should have been banned.
Now to the next community – problem is that its rules have already been discussed in a similar post. Which is really not a problem, but it feels like it would be unnecessary to discuss something that someone else already has written. I am talking about Myspace. Now you can find its rules here. What I found most interesting about Myspace is not the rules itself – but the fact that people do there best to brake them. As I said earlier in this post there are a lot of old and fake profiles, the later controlled with bots. This brings me to a crucial opinion: people are ready brake the rules in order to get seen on a platform that is overfilled with spam and the owners do not do much about it. I think this is sad since Myspace has the potential to grow as a community.
So these are my view on communitys. I will most likely come back to more discussions on Myspace in later posts.
When it comes to communitys where you pay to gain access to certain material or to get higher ranking I do feel that these communitys in a one way is better, but there is also a feeling that sometimes people just pay for something which could have been for free. That the users that want to be part of the community have to pay, since this is what the community is all about. For myself I can of course relate to Xbox-live – which is Microsoft’s online platform for games on their gaming system. Thing is that there you have an automatic silver membership, but if you want to gain access to online gaming and download demos and so on you have to pay for a gold membership. As I see it, there really isn’t any reason having a silver or gold membership, since if you want to get the online experience, you need the gold one. Basically if you’re not interested in playing online, then you wouldn’t plug in the broadband cable. Paying for a membership does give the user more motivation, but again it is about the commitment you have for the community that is going to make the difference – whether your commitment is money or anything else.
Now for the quality versus quantity question – it is a bit like asking the question about the meaning of life, there is easy answers and there is extremely deep one’s which would take years to come up with. It all comes down to how you define quality and quantity. It also depend on what you focus is. Is it the interface, is it the people or perhaps the overall experience? For me it is about the overall experience – I can for example not like all the users or even hate some if the experience is right. That is actually the case with Xbox-live. I play with the friends on my friendslist, but apart from that I just don’t care.
When it comes to quantity I personally prefer smaller communitys simply because it is easier to keep track of everyone, but then again it depends on why you are there. Myspace is a good example of a community that is far too big. From the beginning it was more or less an underground community for underground artists. Today it has grown to become a huge community with millions of users. I used to like Myspace, I was there everyday listening to new music and sharing my own. Now days I visit it maybe once a week, just because I feel that I have too. Myspace is dying – not because of its users but by spammers, old profiles and most of all the lack of ability to reborn itself. You still need a Myspace if you’re in the music industry, since it has replaced the demo, but at the same time this is mainly because there isn’t any alternative. I don’t go to Myspace for new music anymore, since there really isn’t easy to browse among the massive amount of profiles. If I may use a cliché: it is like finding a needle in a haystack. It feels like Myspace is a graveyard for old profiles as well as bands that think that just because they’re on Myspace they are destined to make it in the music industry. Now days I found music somewhere else and perhaps go to Myspace to see if there are more songs from a specific artist.
To be able to control a community you have to have rules – it is essential. After that I just feel that any form of reprimand that is necessary to control the community should be used. I do agree with my friend on this one – a combination is probably the most effective.
Online relationships are a tricky question, since they in many ways will lead to relationships which may also be part of your everyday life. I don’t draw a line between online and IRL-relationships – in theory. Since you can always be connected nowadays, online relationships are in a way more real in the sense that many of these relationships can be reached through computers or mobile/cell phones. I suppose that it is also the reason why people feel attractive to them, since you just as easily can disappear by going offline. It is easy to see the person on the other side as just a fictional idea and not a real person. In real life relationships there is a higher form of commitment – you can’t just walk away and even if you can it would hurt more. I ask myself where I cross the line from being in an online relationship to where I consider the relationship to be real. I am not talking about relationships as in a “boy meets girl situation” – I am talking in general terms. My conclusion is that when people I meet online make it from their forum and into my private sphere – such as mobile/cell phones or messaging services – I consider them real, which is kind of ironic since these tools are digital too. I suppose that this is how the future will look, that the higher our connectivity gets the more will the blurry line between real and digital relations become more… blurry.
When it comes to media in these new forums, such as World of Warcraft and Second Life – I do feel that the potential in these markets are great if you figure out how to use them in a clever way. That is from a marketing perspective. I am afraid that it will become like Myspace – that you put too much energy in just being there then on using it right. Say that a company would use World of Warcraft in a commercial way – I think that they would just take advantage of being there first then to use it as a marketing tool and when people understand that it is someone using it use media to further increase the focus. I also think it inevitable that old media has to fuse with new media – since people is not going to abandon new media. Again in the end it is about connectivity.
I have already looked upon Facebook and its rules and regulations. I would like to look on two more communities that I am part of. The first one I have mention – that is Xbox-live. The document clearly states – like any other document of that kind – that it is I as a user that will oblige to any changes in the service and that it is for non-commercial use. Also that it is the user that has the responsibility for the account. This pretty much is what is expected. When it comes to how you leave the service you have to call Microsoft’s support. I have much to say about their support, but I think that’ll be a later post. Let’s just say that all my language knowledge from Xbox-live – especially swearwords – comes in handy when calling there sometimes.
The next segment is even more fun since it involves what you can and can not do while using the service – that is: playing online. Basically it says that you can’t harass anyone online – and my question is: has anyone who wrote this text actually played online? Sure for most parts my online experience has been nothing but good – but that doesn’t mean that there has been harassment and inappropriate language. It happens every time I go online. Most of the time I have also been playing a game which clearly states that you need to be 18 years of age to play – and what do I hear on the other end of my headset? Correct – I hear a swearing, for most part, annoying 7-12 year old that tries to prove something with his gaming by telling everyone how good he is and that the rest of us are idiots. Basically everyone in that particular room should have been banned.
Now to the next community – problem is that its rules have already been discussed in a similar post. Which is really not a problem, but it feels like it would be unnecessary to discuss something that someone else already has written. I am talking about Myspace. Now you can find its rules here. What I found most interesting about Myspace is not the rules itself – but the fact that people do there best to brake them. As I said earlier in this post there are a lot of old and fake profiles, the later controlled with bots. This brings me to a crucial opinion: people are ready brake the rules in order to get seen on a platform that is overfilled with spam and the owners do not do much about it. I think this is sad since Myspace has the potential to grow as a community.
So these are my view on communitys. I will most likely come back to more discussions on Myspace in later posts.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Am I a monkey with a typewriter?
So, why am I asking myself if I am a monkey with a typewriter? Merely because the book I have just read says so. I have just read a book called The cult of the amateur – why today’s internet is killing our culture by Andrew Keen. To summarize the book, Keen argues that our moral values is getting devoured and that the usage of blogs, social online networks and the collective intelligence in search engines and online stores in the end will lead to the end of medias like newspapers, TV as well as institutions like record companies and physical record- and bookstores that will have to close if they can’t obey the large masses. My first thought after finishing that book is why I blog? And after a while: where in this mess of yet thousands and thousands of self written musicians, journalists and video creators do I place myself? I will soon have a bachelor's degree in music production – does this make me an expert? Do I feel more of an expert because of it?
Before I will give you an answer to those questions I would like to address the attention towards the society of which Keen is really harsh against – that is this society: the blogosphere. First of all I do think it is funny that a book that talks about web 2.0 as a big threat to our culture still has its own blog-like website. It is called The great seduction where Keen discusses media culture and technology. Just a thought. Even more funny is that he has linked to Wikipedia – one of the sites which he really seems to hate. Above that he also has about two blogentries every month.
I took the liberty to search for blogs that are talking about Andrew Keen and his manifesto. What I found was a massive criticism against the author himself as well as the book. What I found were also some really interesting points in the debate.
The first point was made in this blog where the author claims that perhaps web 2.0 is deteriorating our society, but at the same time says that isn’t it fair the claim that the institutions that Keen say should be the ones giving us for example news also need to evaluate their work. I personally think that it is a fair assumption – because just as I am careful with the so called real facts that you sometimes find in blogs, shouldn’t I be an equally suspicious reader while opening the newspaper. It is about knowing that all sources are not reliable sources – and it really doesn’t have to do with the source. Sure I probably feel more secure reading a newspaper than I do reading a blog. It is in that statement that the problem lies. I really don’t see a reason putting these institutions on a pedestal just because people working there are educated and have experience with news – in this case. What I am trying to say is that it is not about trusting one or the other source of information – it is about knowing where to find different kinds of information, collect all different views on a subject, and then have your own opinion about it. The truth is that all facts in some ways have been altered and they are bound to be subjective. Perhaps this is the most obvious problem with a blog – people in general like to have an opinion, but many times it is only based on one source - one fact - and most of the time it is the source that makes the information the most interesting from that persons point of view.
Another blog has a good point of view regarding the statement above. He says that people have always tried to express themselves through music, arts, writing and such – but it is with web 2.0 that they have the ability to put it online. But just because a person is for example writing – does this mean that everyone is reading it? Of course not. Just as the example of people showing their work to close friends and relatives you will most likely have the same progress – with the only difference that it is online. It is there for the world to see, but most of the world will not care about it anyway. Perhaps Keen is right when he says that bloggers have too much power – but we are really not talking about all of the blogs, but instead a small number of blogs. As I see it the gatekeepers have moved from magazines and newspapers into cyberspace.
I do feel that some blogs has gotten the wrong idea about Keen himself. As he is saying in an interview on a show called The Agenda he is neither against technology nor entrepreneurialism online. This is a crucial point, since many people have felt the need to really go down on the author himself in their blog instead of the book itself, and as he says in that same interview he is against user generated content. These two blogs for example: here and here. The first one is about Keen being a douchebag – first of all any person who actually tags their blog with that word and then tries to have a discussion about it is just not worth listening to from my point of view. Sure he might truly believe that Keen is an idiot, but it is not fair to the author nor the people reading the book or blog to use that kind of language – especially not if your goal is to be authentic. It is also from my point of view not right to say that someone else has good thoughts in the subject and then just have one link. The other blog is calling Keen ”The Most Pathetic Human Being in Existence” – again why use this phrasing if you try to have a decent discussion about the subject. I do understand why the blogging community is upset – as this blog says: “Again, how do you argue with a man who’s calling you an ignorant, egotistic, boorish monkey?”. He then argues that: “…we need to find some common ground on which to argue”. Clearly it is such statements that should be heard – not people placing themselves on the opposite side having the same extreme and ignorant beliefs. In fact it is extremely smart of Keen to write the book the way he has – since the reaction it got from the blogosphere was expected and with that the publicity that he wanted.
From my standpoint I must ask myself: why is it always a discussion about either or? It is the same problem with the discussion about illegal music downloading. It is like you have to take one side – when the truth is clearly somewhere in the middle. It is the same with Andrew Keen’s book. He has some really good points – for example his discussion about knowing where a source is really from. I totally agree when he claims that the web makes it far too easy for people to hide behind it as a way to manipulate other people – to be totally anonymous. Youtube has that problem as well as Wikipedia. I also believe that it is right that some universities have banned Wikipedia as a source of information for essays and papers. In the interview on The Agenda and in his book Keen is right concerning the fact that Wikipedia really does not have a righteous system for its material – there is no scale. Sure some posts has been locked from editing, but that is just a way for Wikipedia to not take their responsibility.
When he starts to attack services like Amazon I do feel that he has stepped over the line. He claims for example that the algorithms that suggest that if you like this you might like that, can never compare to the knowledge of a real person in a physical music- or bookstore. I agree that a real person has a broader knowledge – but why is there a need to get upset getting a tip of something that you might actually enjoy? Take for example the service last.fm – which indeed is one of those communitys that Keen probably would hate. It is a brilliant example of when collective knowledge is as good as it gets. I personally got really good suggestions to new artists and bands. I have also spoken to many people within the music industry that feel that this is one possible way to go.
Now back to my original questions. First of all: am I a monkey with a typewriter? Well, no I don’t consider myself as a monkey with a typewriter – nor do I feel that anyone blogging is one. I still do think that it is a good point which leads to the second question: why do I blog? I could make it easy and say that it is part of a course, but even if that is true I would probably blog even if I hadn’t been on the course. I don’t see myself as an expert. Yes, I am educated, but I am far from an expert. For example I don’t have the working experience needed – but if anyone out there would want to give me the opportunity to progress within the music industry feel free contact me. Still, people blogging should really ask each other the same question.
So to answer that question: I think I blog since it is an opportunity to express a thought, but mostly I do to have discussions. I don’t have an urge to scream “Look at me” under the oath of: I blog and therefore I am. Sure I want people to read my blog, but it is to get a discussion going. Because let's face it: you will not automatically be seen because of a blog – just as you probably will not get a record deal for having a myspace-page.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Terms of Use: Facebook
So I have read the Terms of Use of Facebook. It was fun, nerve-racking, boring and interesting. Unlike my classmate and friend Per I will not recite as much, merely because you – the reader – can look it up yourself right here. Call me lazy, but I really do think that is more important to have a discussion about the terms then to just tell you what they say. Also I think it is better to relate to Per’s contribution to the discussion then to simply do exactly like him. Many things will be the same, since we are obviously looking at the same text. I will only recite the text which I think is of interest for a discussion.
First and front most I find it interesting that you – as a user of the Facebook site, whether you are a registered member or not – have to oblige to the Terms of Use. At the same time you also agree that they can delete material too. So while you are responsible for the material they can at any time take it away. As I see it, it is like wanting the cake and eating it too. It is more importantly a bit of a lose/lose-situation for the user as well. I am not at all surprised, but it would for a change be somewhat revolutionizing the day that a big corporation decides to actually take some responsibility. And yes I know: it is most likely that that corporation would get a massive amount of lawsuits on there hands – but I actually think that they can afford it and that the statement is more important then the results of it. This is my personal belief of course.
Further down in the document you find the following statement: “All content on the Site and available through the Service, including designs, text, graphics, pictures, video, information, applications, software, music, sound and other files, and their selection and arrangement (the "Site Content"), are the proprietary property of the Company, its users or its licensors with all rights reserved.”. You can interpret this in two ways – either you as a user have the right to the material on the site or that it is the corporations’ users. I think they practically mean that the users of the site – that is the users of Facebook – have the right to its materials. As long as the material us – of course – is used in a non-commercial way.
Furthermore the terms state that: “Unless explicitly stated herein, nothing in these Terms of Use shall be construed as conferring any license to intellectual property rights, whether by estoppel, implication or otherwise. This license is revocable at any time without notice and with or without cause.”. If you rewrite this it means that any interpretation coming to a conclusion that the license you except while registering or visiting the site actually takes away your intellectual rights is wrong. Meaning: you still own the intellectual rights to the material on the site. Still it is hard to read this text and even after looking up the words I still feel somewhat unsure of what it really means, but that is how I would interpret it. At the same time the document state that: “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”. So basically even if you own the right to the material in question – Facebook owns the right the use it in any way they like. Still it is only for as long as the material is on the site. So if you take it away you really will not have a problem.
It is also against the Terms of Use to upload any copyrighted material. Which is kind of like saying that the user can’t upload any copyrighted material, but they can use the users. Contradiction? Yes I suppose, but then again you really don’t need to put copyrighted material on the site or material that you do not want there. And as far as I know there hasn't been a case where Facebook has actually taken material from the site and used it in a commercial way. I doubt that such a behavior would lead to anything good for the site – it would just aggravate its users’.
The document states, under the headline submissions, that: ”You acknowledge and agree that any questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, feedback or other information about the Site or the Service ("Submissions"), provided by you to Company are non-confidential and shall become the sole property of Company. Company shall own exclusive rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be entitled to the unrestricted use and dissemination of these Submissions for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you.”. Again I feel that this is standard procedure in this kind of legal document, but yes: in this case the do own the intellectual rights.
This pretty much concludes my thoughts about the Terms of Use for Facebook. The conclusion that my fellow friend came up with is the same as mine. They can’t interfere with your intellectual rights – since Facebook can’t stand above the law. The only thing they do have the right to is comments und likewise. They can still use any material for a commercial purpose. What mostly surprised me about the debate that we had in Sweden a while ago is not that they supposedly owned the material and could use it the way they wanted – it is that fact that this document is not different from any other legal document that you sign while registering on a website. That is the important note in the discussion – that you should be aware of the fact that most sites will do anything to not be responsible for… well anything. As long as you are aware of that fact and just do things that you feel you can be responsible for in the end I think it is a fair assumption to say that you won’t get any lawsuits in your mailbox. Be rational, use your common sense.
First and front most I find it interesting that you – as a user of the Facebook site, whether you are a registered member or not – have to oblige to the Terms of Use. At the same time you also agree that they can delete material too. So while you are responsible for the material they can at any time take it away. As I see it, it is like wanting the cake and eating it too. It is more importantly a bit of a lose/lose-situation for the user as well. I am not at all surprised, but it would for a change be somewhat revolutionizing the day that a big corporation decides to actually take some responsibility. And yes I know: it is most likely that that corporation would get a massive amount of lawsuits on there hands – but I actually think that they can afford it and that the statement is more important then the results of it. This is my personal belief of course.
Further down in the document you find the following statement: “All content on the Site and available through the Service, including designs, text, graphics, pictures, video, information, applications, software, music, sound and other files, and their selection and arrangement (the "Site Content"), are the proprietary property of the Company, its users or its licensors with all rights reserved.”. You can interpret this in two ways – either you as a user have the right to the material on the site or that it is the corporations’ users. I think they practically mean that the users of the site – that is the users of Facebook – have the right to its materials. As long as the material us – of course – is used in a non-commercial way.
Furthermore the terms state that: “Unless explicitly stated herein, nothing in these Terms of Use shall be construed as conferring any license to intellectual property rights, whether by estoppel, implication or otherwise. This license is revocable at any time without notice and with or without cause.”. If you rewrite this it means that any interpretation coming to a conclusion that the license you except while registering or visiting the site actually takes away your intellectual rights is wrong. Meaning: you still own the intellectual rights to the material on the site. Still it is hard to read this text and even after looking up the words I still feel somewhat unsure of what it really means, but that is how I would interpret it. At the same time the document state that: “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”. So basically even if you own the right to the material in question – Facebook owns the right the use it in any way they like. Still it is only for as long as the material is on the site. So if you take it away you really will not have a problem.
It is also against the Terms of Use to upload any copyrighted material. Which is kind of like saying that the user can’t upload any copyrighted material, but they can use the users. Contradiction? Yes I suppose, but then again you really don’t need to put copyrighted material on the site or material that you do not want there. And as far as I know there hasn't been a case where Facebook has actually taken material from the site and used it in a commercial way. I doubt that such a behavior would lead to anything good for the site – it would just aggravate its users’.
The document states, under the headline submissions, that: ”You acknowledge and agree that any questions, comments, suggestions, ideas, feedback or other information about the Site or the Service ("Submissions"), provided by you to Company are non-confidential and shall become the sole property of Company. Company shall own exclusive rights, including all intellectual property rights, and shall be entitled to the unrestricted use and dissemination of these Submissions for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you.”. Again I feel that this is standard procedure in this kind of legal document, but yes: in this case the do own the intellectual rights.
This pretty much concludes my thoughts about the Terms of Use for Facebook. The conclusion that my fellow friend came up with is the same as mine. They can’t interfere with your intellectual rights – since Facebook can’t stand above the law. The only thing they do have the right to is comments und likewise. They can still use any material for a commercial purpose. What mostly surprised me about the debate that we had in Sweden a while ago is not that they supposedly owned the material and could use it the way they wanted – it is that fact that this document is not different from any other legal document that you sign while registering on a website. That is the important note in the discussion – that you should be aware of the fact that most sites will do anything to not be responsible for… well anything. As long as you are aware of that fact and just do things that you feel you can be responsible for in the end I think it is a fair assumption to say that you won’t get any lawsuits in your mailbox. Be rational, use your common sense.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Birth of online fashion magazines
First of all: no I am not very interested in fashion, perhaps I am fairly interested in the clothes I am wearing but I am for from becoming somewhat of a fashion icon. With that said I found some really interesting articles concerning fashion magazines and its movement online. Actually I was lurking around on Myspace kind of randomly and in the process I ended up adding an online fashion model. It’s from her Myspace where I first heard about the articles I am referring to. What I find intriguing is the mentioning of The long tail – which is a theory that started as a blog and became a bestselling and somewhat revolutionizing book with the same name. Explaining the long tail economy is far from easy, since it got depth that would take a long time to understand – I am far from an expert myself but I have read the book and I found it really interesting – especially for someone whose intentions are to be part of the so called music industry. I would really recommend people in the industry as well as people interested in new media to read it.
The long tail economy can easiest be described as going from selling products with a hit-thinking mentality – for example that a physical music store has say for example 1000 cds’ but only benefits from 20% of them. Today, in the digital world, you have to start thinking about selling more of less. It is best described in the graph made for the theory. Basically it is the long tail that is endless and therefore you can benefit from selling one of each product there since there is an endless amount. If you want a far better explanation I suggest reading the book - written by Chris Anderson - or the blog.
Anyhow, the articles I am referring to are the following: article one and two. They’re talking about two fashion magazine that has gone digital and why this progress has been necessary and also has meant a revival within that industry. The mentioning about the long tail economy is interesting since it really shows the development of niche markets and its progression – and that it really doesn’t have to be about big corporate machines digging themselves through cyberspace. We’re talking about websites with 70 000 hits each month that has been made by one single person – that a community benefits from being small but many. But that is also the unique thing about the long tail – it is the niche society that controls the market since they are the market. It is also interesting that you see it in so many other industries – that they too have walked the same road. Just look upon the music industry – digital music stores that has over 200 000 songs in there possession sell at least one of the songs at least one time – just imagine the benefits. Or smaller music production companies that can handle internet and the tools it brings to utter perfection and create a community based not on money – even if it is there – but the solid ground spelled pure good music. These are the companies that will stay functional forever if they want to, since they always can adapt to the constant changes that is appearing within the industry. I have heard people say that there is no money in the music industry anymore, but I disagree. It is about finding the balance between product, right marketing and a solid base – or for that matter bases’ – which companies need to stand on. It is about adapting to a constantly evolving business. With that said you still need the bases of which an industry has stood upon. Meaning: you can’t use an industry or a market without knowing how it evolved to what it is today. This is what I am looking to understand – because I think it is the key to being revolutionary, to be able to adapt. This is of importance in all the fields that you grip, might it be marketing, song writing or publishing as in an example from my own music production company. In each of these fields you have to understand the movements and the core of the market itself – otherwise I think you end up gripping nothing more then air, chasing shadows. Sure you might be lucky and make it anyway, but you can’t rely on luck even if it does seem like a big factor.
The long tail economy can easiest be described as going from selling products with a hit-thinking mentality – for example that a physical music store has say for example 1000 cds’ but only benefits from 20% of them. Today, in the digital world, you have to start thinking about selling more of less. It is best described in the graph made for the theory. Basically it is the long tail that is endless and therefore you can benefit from selling one of each product there since there is an endless amount. If you want a far better explanation I suggest reading the book - written by Chris Anderson - or the blog.
Anyhow, the articles I am referring to are the following: article one and two. They’re talking about two fashion magazine that has gone digital and why this progress has been necessary and also has meant a revival within that industry. The mentioning about the long tail economy is interesting since it really shows the development of niche markets and its progression – and that it really doesn’t have to be about big corporate machines digging themselves through cyberspace. We’re talking about websites with 70 000 hits each month that has been made by one single person – that a community benefits from being small but many. But that is also the unique thing about the long tail – it is the niche society that controls the market since they are the market. It is also interesting that you see it in so many other industries – that they too have walked the same road. Just look upon the music industry – digital music stores that has over 200 000 songs in there possession sell at least one of the songs at least one time – just imagine the benefits. Or smaller music production companies that can handle internet and the tools it brings to utter perfection and create a community based not on money – even if it is there – but the solid ground spelled pure good music. These are the companies that will stay functional forever if they want to, since they always can adapt to the constant changes that is appearing within the industry. I have heard people say that there is no money in the music industry anymore, but I disagree. It is about finding the balance between product, right marketing and a solid base – or for that matter bases’ – which companies need to stand on. It is about adapting to a constantly evolving business. With that said you still need the bases of which an industry has stood upon. Meaning: you can’t use an industry or a market without knowing how it evolved to what it is today. This is what I am looking to understand – because I think it is the key to being revolutionary, to be able to adapt. This is of importance in all the fields that you grip, might it be marketing, song writing or publishing as in an example from my own music production company. In each of these fields you have to understand the movements and the core of the market itself – otherwise I think you end up gripping nothing more then air, chasing shadows. Sure you might be lucky and make it anyway, but you can’t rely on luck even if it does seem like a big factor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)