Prodigeek

Hulu shoots itself in the foot over and over again

Michael C. Sherrin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:20:50 +0000

Hulu has been highly praised for its sleek design and vast amounts of commercial content, stifling nay-sayers by bringing competing networks together to share content and audiences. But these networks can’t seem to understand how important convenience is to attracting customers away from piracy and file-sharing.

I already wrote about Hulu getting into a technology pissing contest with Boxee, trying to prevent the media center software from making it more convenient to watch Hulu. This was likely meant to prevent consumers from watching Hulu on their televisions. Now Hulu has blocked the PS3 web browser and the Windows Mobile Skyfire browser from viewing Hulu content. None of these browsers changed Hulu content – all the advertising was still in place. Hulu likely is blocking these sources simply to give the content providers more control – and allowing them to use the television and mobile phone as addition revenue streams. But this hurts everyone. Consumers loose the convenience of Hulu and go back to piracy (where they can download and watch content however they choose) or they find other content served in their preferred medium. Hulu looses audience and spends resources hurting consumer value rather than increasing it. Consumers can’t be forced into consuming content like the networks prefer. Giving the consumers choice is the only way to compete and grow.

Now that I’m working, I need to find that life balance

Michael C. Sherrin — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:37:00 +0000

I have found a wonderful job as the I.T. Manager for Leslie Hindman Auctioneers. In addition to managing all the computers and email, I will be managing the website and social media strategy for the company.

The blogging that I hoped would get more regular after finishing graduate school has now taken another productivity hit. As I learn my job, I’ll find that balance that gives me time for the important things in life, namely video games. And once I’m done doing that, I’ll try to find time to blog.

Related posts:

No related posts available

Prodigeek.com | Permalink | RSS | Post a comment

Three factors of usability

Michael C. Sherrin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:00:48 +0000

Software and website usability is not simply a matter of ease of use. In my essay Three Factors of Usability: Understanding Ease of Use, I show how designers and developers can think more broadly about user interfaces and user experiences.

Read the essay here

Related posts:

The future is now, with holodecks

Prodigeek.com | Permalink | RSS | Post a comment

Pirate Party wins 2 seats in European Parliament

Michael C. Sherrin — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:19:00 +0000

The entertainment industry declared a huge win after a Swedish court convicted the founders of Pirate Bay of copyright infringement. But a win isn’t always a win. The ruling helped galvanize Sweden’s Pirate Party, increasing their numbers by more than three times and helping them win two seats in the recent European Parliament elections.

The Pirate Party seeks to reform intellectual property laws to be more balanced with consumer and civil rights. Further support for the party came after Sweden passed a law requiring ISPs to turn over user information upon request (even without a warrant or evidence), leading several ISPs to refuse to save any user records.

The Pirate Party party won its seats with more than 200,000 votes, approximately 7 percent of Sweden’s voting population (and 19 percent of voters under 30). The party has risen to being the third largest in Sweden.

So even though the entertainment industry can claim a win in the Pirate Bay trial (for now at least, since the judge is being investigated for bias), that win helped awaken a social movement against the industry and its causes. Maybe the entertainment industry will start realizing harsh copyright laws and obsolete business models are not the best ways to build a customer base.

Why Last.FM should give the RIAA its data

Michael C. Sherrin — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:00:57 +0000

Controversy swirled last week on allegations that Last.fm’s parent company CBS gave the RIAA user data for possible use in civil and criminal cases. All those involved in the story have denied these allegations, though Techcrunch stands by the story.

It’s impossible to filter the he-said she-said right now, so instead let’s look at all the good that can come from the RIAA looking at Last.fm’s data. First, it’ll be almost impossible to make any case based on the data – Last.fm shows what music people listen to, but not the source (whether its legal or pirated). Instead, the RIAA could use this massive amount of data on real listening behavior to find new revenue streams and marketing opportunities. The RIAA could see exactly who likes one thing and then listens to another, helping to plan concert schedules and other events (like they already do with piracy data).

What would be even better is if the music industry took this data and used it to find new musicians and bands that fit the listening tastes of music fans (the ones listening). Using actual user actions can be much more efficient than focus groups or other market testing, but rarely is that data available. Of course, this is another benefit of the internet’s cheap and easy distribution – easy market testing. Post a new song to Last.fm or YouTube and see what happens. Do a little self promotion and you might have the next Susan Boyle on your label.

Of course, the RIAA won’t do any this. They’d much rather claim they’ve stopped suing people then continuing on suing. More money there than actually finding new business models.

Thesis finishing, final paper writing

Michael C. Sherrin — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:40 +0000

My graduate school year comes to a close in a few weeks. I handed in my thesis today (and will be posting all 35 pages this week in some online fashion). I’ll be getting into a more regular posting schedule over the next week or so, that is, at least until I find a job (still looking…). Until then, blogging will be a fun but poorly paying stand in. Masters degree really comes in handy.

Related posts:

No related posts available

Prodigeek.com | Permalink | RSS | Post a comment

Where’s the value in fan creations?

Michael C. Sherrin — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:22:38 +0000

One (of the many) points of contention with copyright law is how much it limits fan-created works. Last week I wrote about a fan-made sequel to the classic video game Chrono Trigger that publisher Square-Enix forced to stop (only a few weeks before release). This fan-made sequel would never have replaced an official sequel. It was a labor of love from fans eager to promote their love to other people. Cory Doctorow points out, under copyright law, you’re allowed to criticize a work but not praise it.

Under fair use, I can criticize any copyrighted work. I can use clips or excerpts from it to support my criticism. But if I want to promote or praise the work, it’s considered a derivative work, and I have to get permission the copyright holder.

But as my IP classmates say: “Without copyright law, no one will make Transformers.” And “No good has come from remix culture.” These are the future of IP law.

This is where fan creation gets pushed aside. It’s not only the content providers that over value their content. Consumers also give commercial content a higher value than fan or user-generated content, often recognizing professionals do it better (whatever it is). But this assumption under-values the real benefit of fan content.

Video games are the best example of this. Many games have whole-heartedly embraced fan content, providing free tools for fans to create their own levels and add-ons to games. Fans help extend the longevity of the game with their own creations, extending the shelf life and value of the game for users. Even with tons of free content, game developers will release their own add-ons and fans will pay for them (sometimes even releasing fan content as official content). These game developers are not scared of the competition – they know the professionally made content will have a larger, more captivated audience because of the fan content. Other media are slow to realize how beneficial fan made content is for the lifespan of a project.

Fan content doesn’t compete with official content – it’ enhances it (I say official content because fan content can be commercial). Only devoted fans of the Lord or the Rings would take time to make “Hunt for Gollum.” And only fans of the franchise will go out of their way to see it. Any non-fans who see it will quickly recognize it is not an official production and if they like it, they’ll find the official versions. And if they don’t like it, no harm done (increased expose nevertheless helps).

And to say no value comes from fan or remix content? Let’s understand what that is: All those Disney movies from Snow White to Cinderella to the Lion King are based on fairy tales, Shakespeare, and other already written stories, remixed by fans to tell new, exciting tales. West Side Story is no less entertain for remaking Romeo and Juliet and yet Romeo and Juliet remains popular to perform. Movie versions of books and plays often increase the popularity of the original work. Letting fans create labors of love cost the content creators nothing, but gives them every opportunity to gain. Let fans be fans.

Newspapers doomed, but it’s everyone else’s fault

Michael C. Sherrin — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:23:44 +0000

I keep looking for other things to write about, but the newspaper industry just keeps giving me great posts to write. Let’s first look at this Washington Post article that pretty much argues for ending all the useful innovations of the internet to save newspapers. It’s written by two former newspaper lawyers, but the Washington Post wouldn’t be swayed by that kind of conflict of interest.

Michael Masnick does an already perfect job of dismantling the outrageous arguments in the article. To summarize, the authors, Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown, seem to be calling for an end to search engines and fair use while expanding copyright law to cover “hot news” and allowing newspapers to violate antitrust laws (while still offering them tax breaks).

But all this talk of saving newspapers still ignores why newspapers are more important than news. Newspapers are not the only source of journalism and any legislative attempts to save them only support an obsolete business model. Masnick cites from Dale Harrison’s comments on the Post article.

A lesson worth remembering is at the turn of the 20th century people had a transportation problem…and the solution turned out not to be a “faster horse”…but a Ford.

And one should note that the Ford didn’t arise out of the “Horse Industry Revitalization Act”.

I think the future of the media business will look as different as Ford and Toyota’s operations look from horse traders and blacksmiths.

Imagine what the passage of such ill-conceived legislation would have done to the car industry a century ago.

Harrison goes on to show that newspapers, for decades, had a monopoly on distribution. This lead to inflated advertising prices and likewise inflated budgets (much of the reason newspapers are in trouble now is the massive amount of debt they acquired during the bubble 90s). This monopoly distribution is dismantled with the internet, forcing advertising prices down to real market values and giving customers almost infinite choices for their content consumption. Because of this basic economic fact, newspapers cannot sustain the business model they’ve been using for the past century. It’s time to evolve.

But we’re scared if we lose newspapers, we lose journalism because none of these bloggers or aggregators create content. If that so, then why is Maureen Dowd getting accused of plagiarizing a blogger? I’ve already criticized Dowd’s incredible misunderstanding of the internet and newspaper economics as well as her accusations of copyright infringement at Google (even though Google only links to content). I actually have no problem with Dowd copying the blogger (she can copy me anytime) – plagiarism can actually be a good thing sometimes – but Dowd’s hypocrisy shows that 1) newspaper journalists are not perfect and 2) some bloggers can apparently write really well.

Also, let’s note that bloggers exposed Dowd’s plagiarism and pressured her to update her column online (and a correction in the Times).

Thankfully, not every newspaper wants to remain in the 1980s. John Naughton writes for the Guardian saying capitalism will eventually kill off newspapers that can’t evolve, leaving the market winners to better understand how to run a news business (not just paper) in the 21st century.

The problem at the moment is that the web is awash with free content, and in a competitive market the price always converges on the marginal cost – which is currently zero. But as providers disappear (or, like Murdoch, decide to charge), the supply of free news will diminish and something more like a normal market will emerge. Only then will we find out what people are willing to pay for news.

That takes care of the economics. But what will journalism be like in the perfectly competitive online world? One clue is provided by the novelist William Gibson’s celebrated maxim that “the future is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed”. In a recent lecture, the writer Steven Johnson took Gibson’s insight to heart and argued that if we want to know what the networked journalism of the future might be like, we should look now at how the reporting of technology has evolved over the past few decades.

The future is now. See if you can catch up.

Different corporate approaches to fan creations

Michael C. Sherrin — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:55:09 +0000

Just because you have a legal right to something doesn’t mean it’s always the right decision. Copyright allows the creator of a work to control derivative works – creative works based on the original work. This is a legal right of content creators, but enforcing it hurts the content creators more by alienating the very fans who keep them in business.

Let’s look at two examples. First, fans of the Lord of the Rings created an impressive film telling an untold story using the characters and lore from the books. “Hunt for Gollum” was a labor of love by people who love the Lord of the Rings so much, they spent their own time and money producing a film of amazing quality and storytelling. Thankfully, Tolkien’s estate allowed the film to be released as long it was always non-profit. But why only non-profit? These fans made this movie (and others will see it) because they already love the Lord of the Rings. Fans know it’s not an authorized edition or cannon to the storyline (and if you ask most geeks, being cannon is the most important thing to get our interest). This means if Tolkien’s estate comes out with their own telling of the same story, it will still have the same audience, plus more who found out about the fan-made film – it’s a win-win situation.

But not all companies see the benefits of fan production. Video game publisher Square-Enix sent a cease-and-desist notice to a fan-made sequel to the classic game Chrono Trigger. Square has taken down several fan productions related to Chrono Trigger, this most recent takedown happening mere weeks before the game’s release. But what is the threat? Square is still free to release their own cannon sequels – this fan production only serves to increase the value and attention on this 15 year old franchise. The people making this massive game are fans – the people Square should be supporting not suing.

Video games especially have shown how fan labors of love can help the series. Many video games include modification tools to allow fans to create their own games and stories, either expanding on the official material or creating worlds of their own. While Square has the legal right to stop these fan-games, they are hurting the very people who keep them in business.

How much money do companies leave on the table?

Michael C. Sherrin — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:09:37 +0000

After my IP class last week, a classmate and I continued our debate. He said something that stuck with me: “Companies won’t leave money on the table.” But in many cases, companies do leave money on the table. Sometimes the risk isn’t worth the reward, but sometimes it’s sheer stubbornness.

I mentioned Farhad Manjoo’s article about why there is no iTunes for a movies a few weeks ago. The reason, according to Manjoo, is there are too many contracts to renegotiate and too many people to get permission from to make an all-you-can-download movie service cost effective. This is not because it’s actually expensive to make (all those BitTorrent sites seem to manage). It’s because the variety of rights holders demand too much money. Rights holders over value their copyright (or patent other cases). They demand more money than someone can make selling another product (like a download service). Instead of getting paid, nothing gets done or sold, meaning everyone leaves money on the table.

Want a nice, clean consumer example? iTunes introduced variable pricing for music at the demand of the record companies. Record companies could choose a lower 69 cent price, the regular 99 cent price, and a $1.29. Few chose the lower price, pushing popular and new songs to the higher $1.29. Early results show the labels are losing money from the decrease in sales – unit sales have dropped to the point where actual revenue is lower than when prices were 99 cents. Don’t say they weren’t warned.

The examples are numerous, from newspapers threatening Google even though its sends them tons of free traffic to monetize to Warner Music demanding more money from YouTube and music games like Guitar Hero, ignoring the huge promotional benefit they get from both. TV shows like the Wonder Years can’t appear on DVD or TV because of the over-priced music. Other shows have changed the music, from Dawson’s Creek to WKRP in Cincinnati.

In the patent world, having too many patents in one area is called a patent thicket and can make it hard for research because it requires so many different licenses (and too many companies over valuing their intellectual property) that it becomes cost-prohibitive to research either from licensing or lawsuits. Some companies collect their patents to allow products to be made, but these patent pools often do more harm than good. This is even hampering drug research:

Peter Ringrose, chief scientific officer at Bristol-Myers, has said there are more than 50 proteins possibly involved in cancer that the company was not working on because the patent holders either would not allow it or were demanding unreasonable royalties.

Yes, I went there. You might die because greedy companies refuse to take money.

In all seriousness, intellectual property not only gives monopoly rights to a single entity, but it also comes a sense of entitlement that seems to hurt the rights holder and everyone down the supply chain, including consumers. This is because rights holders significant over-value their own intellectual property. Much of the value from content comes from how it reaches the consumer, whether on DVD, TV, or some innovative package. Pricing yourself out of these products does not make your content more valuable – it devalues it because consumers don’t experience it. Companies are leaving money on the table, not just from the initial royalties, but from the future revenue made by future sales of products based on new fans or new innovations.