Group items tagged

PIR = parallel importation restriction. Basically, every country around the world (except a choice few like Hong Kong and New Zealand who did away with it) is a 'territory' so far as publishing is concerned. If you publish a book in Australia, you can't just ship it over to the US and sell it wholesale to the bookstores over there. No, you have to find a publisher over there who will by the licence to reproduce the book for that market. India looks to be thinking about doing away with that. On the plus side for consumers, they'll have access to the entire Amazon e-book range - Hooray! Publishers won't be so happy, as they will lose out on royalties from selling 'local' e-books (hardcopy books will also be affected, but that's not at issue here). Of course, it doesn't work both ways - India will still have to go through the usual channels to publish overseas. the US protects its own. Australia debated this last year, you may remember. Woolworths and Coles were all for PIR abolition, but not really anyone else was ...

Facebook has apologised for the "Draw Mohammed Day" group and blocked the offending content from being accessed in Pakistan, rather than removing the content. I find it interesting that a company has taken responsibility for content published by users, but since they are a publisher of content they should probably be treated in the same way that a news publisher may be treated when publishing content, regardless of whether that content was developed by them or not. Brings up the issue of content moderation also.

Extensive report about the potential challenges to be faced by publishers as they adapt to the predicted 'e-book revolution'

This article argues that reputation - such as in Apple's iPad - can be more important than need and functionality when it comes to technology. The phenomena of 'the fad' is not new, but is especially relevant with technological products and innovation. It will be interesting to see whether items such as the iPad do fill gaps in a market or are simply fad toys. The iPad's claimed 'killer function' - that of reading and subscriptions - will prove interesting when we look at how the publishing industry repsponds and whether standards much develop for newspapers/books/magazines.

A survey done to see how online piracy has affected the revevue of publisher. approximately 3 billion was the answer.

Apple has taken down two apps from German media, as they were considered offensive. This moves towards censorship could extend to a larger control of editorial content. Do media have to comply? 

The University of California published a report about Internet privacy. 1.000 Americans were interviewed last summer. The result: 55% are more concerned about privacy issues then they were five years ago - mainly because they know more about the subject now. But still only 14% read privacy policies on websites. Besides that younger Internet users belief that their privacy is protected by the law.

Not only was Tudehope sacked for publishing satire videos of Liberal Party faction fights but was outed as ghosting Turnbull's twitter. What a job! Interesting to see how Australia's political parties use online media.

ICANN allowed last year the use of characters different from latin for URLs, but only this week the first URL with arabic characters was published.

The popularity of ipad has raised book piracy issue. Since dowloading books is relatively fast than downloading a movie or a song, publishers are seriously facing a problem of online piracy.

An original article by David Armano published in the Harward Business Review. Privacy. It's the key word in most Facebook-related headlines these days. But it's not the key idea. For the author it is really about is not the limits of privacy but the notion of agility - the ability of an organization to implement rapid iterations in their products and services for better and/or worse.

The latest annual human rights report has been published: The Internet plays an increasingly important role in the restrictions of human rights, it states.

Telstra is violating human rights then!

South Korean government still thinks that the benefits of censorship are worth the opprobrium. They block dusscusion sites, arrest bloggers for rediculous reasons; for instance, they publish controversial opinions or propagating falsehood online. Since many popular foreign websites such as Google and Youtube decided to require its users to undergo identity verification, Korean internet users have nowhere to have the freedom of speech on the web planet.

Just wait a second and think.... does he have a point?

Due to it's population, I think China will still be the biggest market for the internet despite the censorsip the govornment placed.

Interesting data on how and why British politicians are slow in the use of social media for political campaigning. They still trust other more traditional channels. Interesting data: Europeans are lagging behind American policy makers in their use of Twitter and other means of digital communication. Might the higher age average of European citizens have something to do with it?

Defending her tweets and taking aim at the fallout, Deveny, who was sacked as a columnist for The Age over her Logies comments, likened Twitter to "passing notes in class, but suddenly these notes are being projected into the sky and taken out of context. "Twitter is online graffiti, not a news source." Wrong.

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