Group items tagged

Virgin Mobile marketing team clearly not understanding the Spam Act by sending customers email after they have opted out just to 'make sure you're still certain' about option out! Virgin since fined $22K and have committed to providing training for their staff.

If you are going to look at copyright on the internet, you really can't go past this settlement. This is Google's next step at world domination: control of our intellectual property. No one likes it, but everyone is going ahead with it because Google has them over a barrel ... The basic deal is that Google wants to digitise every book ever written and make them all searchable online by google customer. On the surface this is all shiny; it seems commonsense that all material should be digitised - we have to keep up with technology. The problem arises when you get to the sticky situation of copyright - generally with books, owners get royalties every time someone buys a copy. With the digitisation, Google wasn't too keen on the idea of pay-per-view. Ideally, they would have loved to present all that information free and just reap the benefit ... well, however Google reaps benefits. There was litigation all round - publishers were against it, yahoo and other internet giants were against it (because it wasn't their idea) and it went to the doors of the US Supreme Court, but not quite to trial. Google's rivals were not too sure that they wanted to go to trial, because the outcome was a little on the uncertain side. So the Google book settlement was drawn up, objected to, fought, signed up to, taken to the US Supreme Court for approval, rejected, modified, fought over a bit more, and sent back to the judge. The last move was in Feb 2010; we're still waiting for Critics argue that the deal gives Google too much power over digital books and will not benefit customers in terms of cost, possible censorship issues, privacy. Copyright owners will also lose out, as Google's royalty policy cuts them out of the system and reduces their royalty - and they are automatically included in the agreement unless they 'opt out' (even if they have not 'opted in'). Really, Google is the only party that seems to benefit, and yet for all of the fighting, the settlement seems

Following customer complaints, CommSec recently fined $55K for not providing customers an Opt out option when sending out e-marketing. As a response, CommSec have appointed an independant auditer to assess their e-marketing activity and provide training. I do question a lot of marketing departments... does it take a fine from ACMA before they get up to speed with how to conduct their communications and campaigns?

Their ad agency should know what they're doing! It's not hard to put an unsubscribe link in an email. Wacky.

Hmmm makes one think whether someone in marketing was too lazy in their job or whether CommSec knowlingly defied spamming laws. Australian spamming laws can be found at http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Privacy/spam.html#acts

Steve Jobs announces that Apple has no intention of supporting Flash sites through iphones and ipads in the future. Claiming that Flash has too many bugs, drains batteries too quickly and is too oriented to PCs. Apple has not intimated that they will offer an alternative solution. Do we believe these reasons, or are there more politics at play here? I'm inclined to think there is something more. Granted Apple does make every attempt to provide its users with a high level of reliability and useability which Flash obviously undermines. Clearly such standards are what differentiates the quality levels of Apple from Mac. The power is with the market then. Will users opt for other devices that do support Flash, or will the Apple brand keep its power despite not supporting the major software brand used to build interactive sites? Interestingly, although Flash is not recognised officially as a 'standard' HTML5 does support certain Flash features. Adobe has commented that it is committed to improving its Flash product.