The latest from TechCrunch
- Who Gets The First Hands On With The Apple Tablet? Maybe Jack Bauer.
- AllVoices Raises $3 Million For Citizen Journalism Site; Takes CNN's iReport Head-On
- McGraw-Hill CEO Confirms What Everybody Knows: The Apple Tablet Is Coming Tomorrow
- Square Announces Its Full List Of Angels With Some Surprises (Mayer, Crowley, Fanning)
- Lessig Calls Google Book Settlement A "Path To Insanity"
| Who Gets The First Hands On With The Apple Tablet? Maybe Jack Bauer. | Top |
| To say there are no shortage of Apple Tablet rumors leading up to tomorrow’s event is perhaps the king of all understatements right now. But here’s maybe the best one yet. Apparently, Fox is in the process of cutting a deal with Apple to get the tablet on an upcoming episode of 24 this season. That news comes from Rodney Charters, who is the director of photography on the show. He’s been tweeting about it pretty much all day, first saying it might be in episode 20 (episode 5 just aired this week), but then saying it might actually be more like episode 22. At one point, Charters notes that he’s “ getting giddy with excitement ” about the possibility. He’s not the only one . Charters also notes that Apple has done product placement with 24 since its first season. But this season (the show’s eighth), Apple computers have been particularly prevalent in the show’s main setting, the CTU office. Charters calls the device the “iSlate,” but who knows if that’s what it will actually be called. He could simply be guessing like everyone else. Though the device is expected to be announced tomorrow, it likely won’t ship until a later date. Some have pegged this in March, some later. That episode of 24 would likely air in May but would shoot much earlier. So it’s possible that Jack Bauer (24’s main character) could get his hands on the device before anyone else. | |
| AllVoices Raises $3 Million For Citizen Journalism Site; Takes CNN's iReport Head-On | Top |
| With the events that took place in Iran last year, the Mumbai bombings and even the plane crash on the Hudson River, there’s no doubt of the power of citizen journalism in today’s media age. Whether it be through social media sites, such as Twitter or through news sites catered towards citizen journalism, the active voice of the eyewitness is now a significant part of any story taking place in the world. Citizen journalism platform AllVoices is seeing significant use traction and is giving its rivals ( many of which are similar sites started by traditional media companies, such as CNN’s iReport ) a run for their money. AllVoices also recently closed a $3 million round of funding from VantagePoint Partners, bringing the startup’s total funding to $9 million. AllVoices allows anyone to contribute blog posts, images, videos and other observations, on local and global news. The site’s proprietary technology (AllVoices has filed for three patents) will tag, rank and sort news based on a global, regional, country and city pages and will determine what is breaking news and popular (in terms of phases of a news cycle). The system will also filter for spam, police the site, fact check each user report for credibility and assign a credibility rating to each news report. The site also lets users file reports from their cell phone via MMS and SMS, which is helpful to users in countries where computer usage is low but mobile device usage is high. The end goal is to provide a 360 degree view of reported news that also has a multimedia view of what’s happening in the world. The brainchild of Amra Tareen, AllVoices was launched by Tareen and her co-founders in 2008. A former VC at Sevin Rosen Funds, Tareen recognized the importance of the citizen voice in everyday news in 2005 when she was an aid worker in Pakistan following the catastrophic earthquakes that caused massive damage and deaths in the country. Tareen may be onto to something with AllVoices. The site currently has a community of 275,000 citizen reporters and is seeing close to 5 million unique visitors per month, which is fast growth for a recently launched media startup. Half of AllVoices’ traffic and visitors are from outside the U.S. and U.K, with citizens reporting from over 160 different countries. Tareen emphasizes that the site is as much a community as a news platform. Contributors can collaborate on stories and discuss news with other users and readers on the site. While AllVoices may be seeing steady growth, the citizen journalism platform may be close to overtaking CNN’s iReport, which seems to be the site’s main rival in terms of traffic. Tareen says that as of late 2008, iReport had 118,000 registered users and is “fully confident that AllVoices is the largest citizen reporting cite in the world.” Another competitor in the space, NowPublic was acquired by the Examiner.com last year for $25 million. So what’s next for the site? Tareen says that she wants to focus on expanding the hyper-local coverage on the news site in the U.S. I can;t help but think that AllVoices may be a possible acquisition target for a media company that doesn’t have a popular citizen journalism portal. One things for sure; we’ll be hearing more from AllVoices in the future. | |
| McGraw-Hill CEO Confirms What Everybody Knows: The Apple Tablet Is Coming Tomorrow | Top |
| McGraw-Hill. Ever heard of them? If you've picked up any textbook written in the last hundred years or so, chances are they published it. Well, its CEO just spilled the beans on Apple's not-so-secret surprise on live TV. Going beyond confirming that it's the much-fabled Tablet, Terry McGraw confirms that they "have worked with Apple for quite a while" on this – so unless this guy has gone on a crazy binge, it's pretty likely he knows what hes talking about. He goes on to matter-of-factly state that the tablet will be based on the "iPhone operating system". The words, straight out of McGraw's mouth: | |
| Square Announces Its Full List Of Angels With Some Surprises (Mayer, Crowley, Fanning) | Top |
| Square , the startup that is making mobile payments for the iPhone, just announced it’s full list of angel investors. Kevin Rose announced his involvement in a video demo (embedded below) he did a few days ago, but until now it wasn’t known who else was involved. The full list includes: Marissa Mayer from Google, Dennis Crowley from Foursquare, Kevin Rose from Digg, Ron Conway , Biz Stone of Twitter, Joshua Schachter , Shawn Fanning (who’s starting a new venture with Dave Morin), Zachary Bogue, Andrew Rasiej , Greg Yaitanes , Jean-David Blanc, David Lee , Esther Dyson , Robin Chan , First Round Capital and Fritz Lanman . Basically, it’s an extremely impressive list. Most notable are Marissa Mayer and Dennis Crowley, making their first investments, and it seems like a great investment to get into. Square has gotten off to a fast start these last few months. When it raised $10 million, it was rumored that the company was valued at $40 million . For a company whose product isn’t even available to the public, that’s not bad. Our own MG got a demo of Square , and saw its potential to democratize mobile payments. CrunchBase Information Square Information provided by CrunchBase | |
| Lessig Calls Google Book Settlement A "Path To Insanity" | Top |
| The last person you’d expect to speak out against the Google Book settlement with the Authors Guild which will make available the contents of millions of orphan book s in digital form is Harvard law professor and free-culture advocate Lawrence Lessig. In a lengthy essay in The New Republic he calls the settlement a “path to insanity” that will be “culturally asphyxiating,” but not for the reasons you might think. Lessig believes the problem lies not so much with the settlement itself or Google, as it does with copyright law. But after pouring over the complex language of the 165-page settlement, he believes more than ever before in the need to overhaul copyright law for the Internet era (a theme he’s hit on before ). Here is the gist of the problem as he explains it: The deal constructs a world in which control can be exercised at the level of a page, and maybe even a quote. It is a world in which every bit, every published word, could be licensed. It is the opposite of the old slogan about nuclear power: every bit gets metered, because metering is so cheap. We begin to sell access to knowledge the way we sell access to a movie theater, or a candy store, or a baseball stadium. We create not digital libraries, but digital bookstores: a Barnes & Noble without the Starbucks. By breaking up books into different licensable parts, Lessig fears that we are going to encounter the same problem with books that we do today with film. He gives the example of documentary films which are sometimes nearly impossible to restore or preserve in digital form because the rights to every song and clip of archive footage need to be cleared again. This is an artifact of the types of licensing contracts that became the norm for film, where each constituent part of a work carries its own copyrights into perpetuity, making it more difficult down the road to update into digital form or pass along as a piece of shared culture. Up until now, books for the most part are treated as one single work. Yet the language of the Google Books settlement threatens to break books up into different constituent parts. The result is that you might be reading from a medical book on your iPhone in a hospital waiting room trying to figure out what’s wrong with your child, as Lessig did, only to find that a crucial illustration or table is missing because it is under a different license. As Lessig notes: In real libraries, in real space, access is not metered at the level of the page (or the image on the page). Access is metered at the level of books (or magazines, or CDs, or DVDs). It’s not so much that Lessig thinks the Google settlement is bad as far as it goes. He actually gives Google some props on the settlement, which makes up to 20 percent of even protected works accessible for free. (Google has argued vehemently that the settlement is a good deal for authors and the public alike, and wants to change it as little as possible ). Lessig writes: There is much to praise in this settlement. Lawsuits are expensive and uncertain. They take years to resolve. The deal Google struck guaranteed the public more free access to free content than "fair use" would have done. Twenty percent is better than snippets, and a system that channels money to authors is going to be liked much more than a system that does not. But it sets a bad precedent for how we treat digital copyrights. We must balance those rights, as we always have, with the right to access and pass on our culture. Lessig calls the settlement a path to insanity because he fears it puts us on the road to making the consumption of culture “a legally regulated event”: When you send your children to a library to write a research paper, you do not want them to have access to just 20 percent of each book they need to read. You want them to be able to read all of the book. And you do not want them to read just the books they think they would be willing to pay to access. You want them to browse: to explore, to wonder, to ask questions–the way, for example, people explore and wonder and ask questions using Google or Wikipedia. We had a culture where an enormous chunk of cultural life was proliferated and shared without most of us ever calling a copyright lawyer. We are about to change that past, radically. And the premise for that change is an accidental feature of the architecture of copyright law: that it regulates copies. In the physical world, this architecture means that the law regulates a small set of the possible uses of a copyrighted work. In the digital world, this architecture means that the law regulates everything. For every single use of creative work in digital space makes a copy. Thus–the lawyer insists–every single use must in some sense be licensed. Even the scanning of a book for the purpose of generating an index–the action at the core of the Google book case–triggers the law of copyright, because that scanning, again, produces a copy. And what this means, or so I fear, is that we are about to transform books into documentary films. The legal structure that we now contemplate for the accessing of books is even more complex than the legal structure that we have in place for the accessing of films. Or more simply still: we are about to make every access to our culture a legally regulated event, rich in its demand for lawyers and licenses, certain to burden even relatively popular work. Or again: we are about to make a catastrophic cultural mistake. Regulating copies simply makes no sense in a digital world where every piece of content is made up of bits because those bits must be copied before they can be consumed or shared. There is no digital equivalent of the library or used book store where culture can be preserved and found by anyone. The Google Book settlement has special provisions for libraries and academics, but Lessig warns against relying “upon special favors granted by private companies (and quasi-monopoly collecting societies).” Rather, he proposes something more radical and far-reaching. A complete overhaul of copyright law which would include a mandatory registry of who owns what (to make it easier to track down copyright holders to ask for permission to use a work) and protection of a work as whole rather than protection to its constituent parts. “Once a work is made,” he writes, “we need to recognize that it has its own claim within our culture.” If permission is granted once to use a song for a film or an illustration in a book, then after a period of time (he suggests 14 years), the rights holder for any one part should not be able to “control the whole.” And as for the registry, he suggests that it be operated by private companies much like Internet domain registries are today, with the rules for registering being mandated by law. It would be up to copyright holders to register otherwise their works pass into the public domain. These are extremely reasonable suggestions to which I am sure the copyright lobby will strenuously object. But this debate needs to happen and Lessig gives us a good place to start. How would you change copyright law for the digital age? CrunchBase Information Lawrence Lessig Google Information provided by CrunchBase | |
CREATE MORE ALERTS:
Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted
Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope
Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more
News - Only the news you want, delivered!
Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more
Weather - Get today's weather conditions
| You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. |
No comments:
Post a Comment