By the way - what IS a dengl - this is; and to see a bit more, see Dengl No 1 - which I repeated at Dengl No 12 ...)
so - here is Dengl 34 ....
Here's how someone becomes a zillionaire
Remember – you heard it here, first (written from Hong Kong, to a friend, 27 July 2011)
It's to do with replacing YouTube - that works on some hairshirt freeby model that the internet is g-ds gift to society and all the world’s best minds will freely contribute unlimited content and ... (basically,
providence will pay for pie in the sky …)
But then, Wikipaedia started advertising and begging for money donations and ...
why not "get real" - take a leaf out of the banana (and coffee etc) world - and go fairtrade?
Thus FAIRTUBE
FAIRTUBE (copyright JMW etc all that codswallop) works like iTunes etc and collects a negligible payment for each click-in.
It pays a rewarding proportion to the uploader of original material (nothing to pirated videos of commercial concerts etc).
This way genuine uploaders get some pocket money (in extreme cases, a good deal more) - all the elephants painting pictures, crazy kids and animals, domestic performances of music etc . In fact, look at example 3 in the linked website ….
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_youtube_videos_of_all_time.php
… downloaders have to pay - but given the mega-mass scale of the overall operation, relatively very little indeed - eg I would pay 10p to see a Korean kid genius playing Recuerdos de El Alhambra on the guitar - you give the kid 6 p and keep 4 p ...(to run and develop the operation)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKB694kYtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDKB694kYtI
no adverts pop ups etc - just plain product; fortunately Murdoch - and others - have been slowly persuading the public that one should indeed pay for product - albeit not the amounts copied from a past technomeny - we knew why we had to pay $1 for a paper when it was paper - but that's no reason why one should be screwed for $1 when it is digital and much more cheaply distributed ...
still, people are learning that it is honest - FAIR - to pay creators for content.
So – why not harvest all round – with the organiser and distributor of FAIRTUBE making a perfectly reasonable reward for their trouble
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Dengl 33 Thoughts on The Sins or Dangers of Information Greed
Dengl 33 Thoughts on The Sins or Dangers of Information Greed
Travelling in Hong Kong I read a piece from the Guardian, on the Murdochs' performance at the Commons, which appeared in the South China Morning Post. The Public Relations advisors did a skilful job of positioning the Murdochs between the Scylla of incompetence and the Charybdis of sentient guilt; and even Prime Minister David Cameron hopes to have slithered off the former hook with a quasi-apology in the Commons. Since the misdemeanours for which News International is responsible and which are now being redressed go back several years, it becomes a time for a wider and deeper refurbishment of practices in print (in the UK, at least, there are supposed to be institutions that discourage malpractice in broadcasting – and nobody knows clearly who might be able to keep noses clean on the internet; some do not want to try, others, do). We want to be clearer about how and what information may be properly obtained, and then published.
Whatever mechanisms arise to take stock and re-set the compass, in the UK – or even elsewhere, they may well look further than merely at News International. Time magazine reports: “As part of the public inquiry into the News of the World scandal, Lord Justice Levenson has the authority to call media editors, proprietors and politicians to give evidence under oath. The terms of reference call on him to examine the "culture, practices and ethics of the press," including their relationship with police and the contacts between national newspapers and politicians”.
There is said to be one other ex-tabloid editor, who escaped a charge of profitable insider dealing by claiming a similarly narrow middle ground of ignorance, whose behaviour should also be judged. (I gather, since writing this, that an article on this has appeared in the UK press).
The safety of landlines compared with the internet: just a technical question?
At least two further questions arise that insightful reporting should now explore: first, what proportion of hacked calls were on landlines, and thus are these more secure than mobiles? and: should we usefully find a new label by which to refer to what was done to the inbox of the murdered Millie Dowler; we need to recognise and label such "active eavesdropping" an 'active hacking', or 're-stacking' perhaps, to distinguish a more intense from a lesser crime (as murder exceeds manslaughter).
On the first point, above, are mobiles particularly hackable? This seems to be implied in at least one report - and that also gives links to several previous ones. It has evidently been acknowledged over two or three years, that mobiles are particularly hackable. Look at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13013577
It is clear that "hacking" (eavesdropping) has been widespread in the UK, and only the most negligent business and/or public person or body worldwide would assume that such misdemeanour was merely a British failing. It is possible though, that in certain circumstances (such as where the security services would be helped in crime detection or prevention) the public would accept, even welcome hacking. What are such circumstances and where are the lines to be drawn?
A longer-shot conjecture - if it is the case that hordes of people have been sold mobiles which are highly hackable (but were not told that this MAY happen by crooks, or journalists (not the same thing?) and certainly, systematically by the ISPs on behalf of advertisers – are there grounds for a truly massive class action, brought by hackees - and indeed anyone who has a non-secure mobile - against the manufacturers or the vendors?
Scope and (in)acceptability of Hacking and some consequences
A teenager hacks the computer systems of the Pentagon. This is a threat to security (and a disgrace, for those who set up the internal data systems) and the teenager is punished. A newspaper approves the actions of a few people who leak the internal affairs of political institutions, defence organizations and the like; other newspapers do not challenge the one that has given a platform to such leaks – they all enjoy discussing the ‘secrets’. The same newspaper runs a moral crusade against its larger rival, which hacks the instruments of celebrities – right up to the members of the Royal Family in the UK. Where are lines to be drawn, how and why, over what sort of hacking is a good or a bad thing in society?
If celebrities try to suppress press intrusion, by legal injunctions, once they have thus called upon the legal system to act not only on their behalf, but as an example of desirable restraint, should they then be required to go through with their move to have the law act on their behalf, with whatever its mechanisms are, and somehow be discouraged from being bought out by the alleged miscreant, who thus short circuits the Law, with the power of money (and greed on the part of allegedly injured parties) in a way that is not available to poorer people?
Finally, where a celebrity who has tried to avoid publicity through injunctions (to prevent information acquired by hacking, being published) is then by-passed by an avalanche of disclosure, how can third parties (usually children of the celebrity) be protected from the distress and even damage produced by the publicity? Might it be necessary to enforce injunctions – with considerable penalties for infraction – allowing celebrities to “get away with it” if they do have vulnerable children (or other such “third parties”) first in the firing line, to protect them?
Hong Kong 21 July 2011
Travelling in Hong Kong I read a piece from the Guardian, on the Murdochs' performance at the Commons, which appeared in the South China Morning Post. The Public Relations advisors did a skilful job of positioning the Murdochs between the Scylla of incompetence and the Charybdis of sentient guilt; and even Prime Minister David Cameron hopes to have slithered off the former hook with a quasi-apology in the Commons. Since the misdemeanours for which News International is responsible and which are now being redressed go back several years, it becomes a time for a wider and deeper refurbishment of practices in print (in the UK, at least, there are supposed to be institutions that discourage malpractice in broadcasting – and nobody knows clearly who might be able to keep noses clean on the internet; some do not want to try, others, do). We want to be clearer about how and what information may be properly obtained, and then published.
Whatever mechanisms arise to take stock and re-set the compass, in the UK – or even elsewhere, they may well look further than merely at News International. Time magazine reports: “As part of the public inquiry into the News of the World scandal, Lord Justice Levenson has the authority to call media editors, proprietors and politicians to give evidence under oath. The terms of reference call on him to examine the "culture, practices and ethics of the press," including their relationship with police and the contacts between national newspapers and politicians”.
There is said to be one other ex-tabloid editor, who escaped a charge of profitable insider dealing by claiming a similarly narrow middle ground of ignorance, whose behaviour should also be judged. (I gather, since writing this, that an article on this has appeared in the UK press).
The safety of landlines compared with the internet: just a technical question?
At least two further questions arise that insightful reporting should now explore: first, what proportion of hacked calls were on landlines, and thus are these more secure than mobiles? and: should we usefully find a new label by which to refer to what was done to the inbox of the murdered Millie Dowler; we need to recognise and label such "active eavesdropping" an 'active hacking', or 're-stacking' perhaps, to distinguish a more intense from a lesser crime (as murder exceeds manslaughter).
On the first point, above, are mobiles particularly hackable? This seems to be implied in at least one report - and that also gives links to several previous ones. It has evidently been acknowledged over two or three years, that mobiles are particularly hackable. Look at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13013577
It is clear that "hacking" (eavesdropping) has been widespread in the UK, and only the most negligent business and/or public person or body worldwide would assume that such misdemeanour was merely a British failing. It is possible though, that in certain circumstances (such as where the security services would be helped in crime detection or prevention) the public would accept, even welcome hacking. What are such circumstances and where are the lines to be drawn?
A longer-shot conjecture - if it is the case that hordes of people have been sold mobiles which are highly hackable (but were not told that this MAY happen by crooks, or journalists (not the same thing?) and certainly, systematically by the ISPs on behalf of advertisers – are there grounds for a truly massive class action, brought by hackees - and indeed anyone who has a non-secure mobile - against the manufacturers or the vendors?
Scope and (in)acceptability of Hacking and some consequences
A teenager hacks the computer systems of the Pentagon. This is a threat to security (and a disgrace, for those who set up the internal data systems) and the teenager is punished. A newspaper approves the actions of a few people who leak the internal affairs of political institutions, defence organizations and the like; other newspapers do not challenge the one that has given a platform to such leaks – they all enjoy discussing the ‘secrets’. The same newspaper runs a moral crusade against its larger rival, which hacks the instruments of celebrities – right up to the members of the Royal Family in the UK. Where are lines to be drawn, how and why, over what sort of hacking is a good or a bad thing in society?
If celebrities try to suppress press intrusion, by legal injunctions, once they have thus called upon the legal system to act not only on their behalf, but as an example of desirable restraint, should they then be required to go through with their move to have the law act on their behalf, with whatever its mechanisms are, and somehow be discouraged from being bought out by the alleged miscreant, who thus short circuits the Law, with the power of money (and greed on the part of allegedly injured parties) in a way that is not available to poorer people?
Finally, where a celebrity who has tried to avoid publicity through injunctions (to prevent information acquired by hacking, being published) is then by-passed by an avalanche of disclosure, how can third parties (usually children of the celebrity) be protected from the distress and even damage produced by the publicity? Might it be necessary to enforce injunctions – with considerable penalties for infraction – allowing celebrities to “get away with it” if they do have vulnerable children (or other such “third parties”) first in the firing line, to protect them?
Hong Kong 21 July 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
