Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - December 16th, ’23

[JackSpratts]

Since 2002































December 16th, 2023




"If Buying isn't Owning, Piracy isn't Stealing"

20 years ago, I got in a (friendly) public spat with Chris Anderson, who was then the editor in chief of Wired. I'd publicly noted my disappointment with glowing Wired reviews of DRM-encumbered digital devices, prompting Anderson to call me unrealistic for expecting the magazine to condemn gadgets for their DRM:

https://longtail.typepad.com/the_lon..._drm_evil.html

I replied in public, telling him that he'd misunderstood. This wasn't an issue of ideological purity – it was about good reviewing practice. Wired was telling readers to buy a product because it had features x, y and z, but at any time in the future, without warning, without recourse, the vendor could switch off any of those features:

https://memex.craphound.com/2004/12/...editor-on-drm/

I proposed that all Wired endorsements for DRM-encumbered products should come with this disclaimer:

WARNING: THIS DEVICE’S FEATURES ARE SUBJECT TO REVOCATION WITHOUT NOTICE, ACCORDING TO TERMS SET OUT IN SECRET NEGOTIATIONS. YOUR INVESTMENT IS CONTINGENT ON THE GOODWILL OF THE WORLD’S MOST PARANOID, TECHNOPHOBIC ENTERTAINMENT EXECS. THIS DEVICE AND DEVICES LIKE IT ARE TYPICALLY USED TO CHARGE YOU FOR THINGS YOU USED TO GET FOR FREE — BE SURE TO FACTOR IN THE PRICE OF BUYING ALL YOUR MEDIA OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AT NO TIME IN HISTORY HAS ANY ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY GOTTEN A SWEET DEAL LIKE THIS FROM THE ELECTRONICS PEOPLE, BUT THIS TIME THEY’RE GETTING A TOTAL WALK. HERE, PUT THIS IN YOUR MOUTH, IT’LL MUFFLE YOUR WHIMPERS.

Wired didn't take me up on this suggestion.

But I was right. The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you've already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations. Inkjet printers were always a sleazy business, but once these printers got directly connected to the internet, companies like HP started pushing out "security updates" that modified your printer to make it reject the third-party ink you'd paid for:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/1...e-your-printer

Now, this scam wouldn't work if you could just put things back the way they were before the "update," which is where the DRM comes in. A thicket of IP laws make reverse-engineering DRM-encumbered products into a felony. Combine always-on network access with indiscriminate criminalization of user modification, and the enshittification will follow, as surely as night follows day.

This is the root of all the right to repair shenanigans. Sure, companies withhold access to diagnostic codes and parts, but codes can be extracted and parts can be cloned. The real teeth in blocking repair comes from the law, not the tech. The company that makes McDonald's wildly unreliable McFlurry machines makes a fortune charging franchisees to fix these eternally broken appliances. When a third party threatened this racket by reverse-engineering the DRM that blocked independent repair, they got buried in legal threats:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/e...lers/#cold-war

Everybody loves this racket. In Poland, a team of security researchers at the OhMyHack conference just presented their teardown of the anti-repair features in NEWAG Impuls locomotives. NEWAG boobytrapped their trains to try and detect if they've been independently serviced, and to respond to any unauthorized repairs by bricking themselves:

https://mamot.fr/@q3k@hackerspace.pl/111528162905209453

Poland is part of the EU, meaning that they are required to uphold the provisions of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive, including Article 6, which bans this kind of reverse-engineering. The researchers are planning to present their work again at the Chaos Communications Congress in Hamburg this month – Germany is also a party to the EUCD. The threat to researchers from presenting this work is real – but so is the threat to conferences that host them:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-a...ver-sdmi-hack/

20 years ago, Chris Anderson told me that it was unrealistic to expect tech companies to refuse demands for DRM from the entertainment companies whose media they hoped to play. My argument – then and now – was that any tech company that sells you a gadget that can have its features revoked is defrauding you. You're paying for x, y and z – and if they are contractually required to remove x and y on demand, they are selling you something that you can't rely on, without making that clear to you.

But it's worse than that. When a tech company designs a device for remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrades, they invite both external and internal parties to demand those downgrades. Like Pavel Chekov says, a phaser on the bridge in Act I is going to go off by Act III. Selling a product that can be remotely, irreversibly, nonconsensually downgraded inevitably results in the worst person at the product-planning meeting proposing to do so. The fact that there are no penalties for doing so makes it impossible for the better people in that meeting to win the ensuing argument, leading to the moral injury of seeing a product you care about reduced to a pile of shit:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/25/m...shittification

But even if everyone at that table is a swell egg who wouldn't dream of enshittifying the product, the existence of a remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrade feature makes the product vulnerable to external actors who will demand that it be used. Back in 2022, Adobe informed its customers that it had lost its deal to include Pantone colors in Photoshop, Illustrator and other "software as a service" packages. As a result, users would now have to start paying a monthly fee to see their own, completed images. Fail to pay the fee and all the Pantone-coded pixels in your artwork would just show up as black:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/28/f...st-the-process

Adobe blamed this on Pantone, and there was lots of speculation about what had happened. Had Pantone jacked up its price to Adobe, so Adobe passed the price on to its users in the hopes of embarrassing Pantone? Who knows? Who can know? That's the point: you invested in Photoshop, you spent money and time creating images with it, but you have no way to know whether or how you'll be able to access those images in the future. Those terms can change at any time, and if you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.

These companies are all run by CEOs who got their MBAs at Darth Vader University, where the first lesson is "I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further." Adobe chose to design its software so it would be vulnerable to this kind of demand, and then its customers paid for that choice. Sure, Pantone are dicks, but this is Adobe's fault. They stuck a KICK ME sign to your back, and Pantone obliged.

This keeps happening and it's gonna keep happening. Last week, Playstation owners who'd bought (or "bought") Warner TV shows got messages telling them that Warner had walked away from its deal to sell videos through the Playstation store, and so all the videos they'd paid for were going to be deleted forever. They wouldn't even get refunds (to be clear, refunds would also be bullshit – when I was a bookseller, I didn't get to break into your house and steal the books I'd sold you, not even if I left some cash on your kitchen table).

Sure, Warner is an unbelievably shitty company run by the single most guillotineable executive in all of Southern California, the loathsome David Zaslav, who oversaw the merger of Warner with Discovery. Zaslav is the creep who figured out that he could make more money cancelling completed movies and TV shows and taking a tax writeoff than he stood to make by releasing them:

https://aftermath.site/there-is-no-p...hout-ownership

Imagine putting years of your life into making a program – showing up on set at 5AM and leaving your kids to get their own breakfast, performing stunts that could maim or kill you, working 16-hour days during the acute phase of the covid pandemic and driving home in the night, only to have this absolute turd of a man delete the program before anyone could see it, forever, to get a minor tax advantage. Talk about moral injury!

But without Sony's complicity in designing a remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrade feature into the Playstation, Zaslav's war on art and creative workers would be limited to material that hadn't been released yet. Thanks to Sony's awful choices, David Zaslav can break into your house, steal your movies – and he doesn't even have to leave a twenty on your kitchen table.

The point here – the point I made 20 years ago to Chris Anderson – is that this is the foreseeable, inevitable result of designing devices for remote, irreversible, nonconsensual downgrades. Anyone who was paying attention should have figured that out in the GW Bush administration. Anyone who does this today? Absolute flaming garbage.

Sure, Zaslav deserves to be staked out over an anthill and slathered in high-fructose corn syrup. But save the next anthill for the Sony exec who shipped a product that would let Zaslav come into your home and rob you. That piece of shit knew what they were doing and they did it anyway. Fuck them. Sideways. With a brick.

Meanwhile, the studios keep making the case for stealing movies rather than paying for them. As Tyler James Hill wrote: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing":

https://bsky.app/profile/tylerjamesh.../3kflw2lvam42n
https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/08/p...ler-james-hill





Italy Challenges ‘Digital Mafias’
Branislav Pekic

Italy’s Camera dei deputati (Chamber of Deputies), the lower house of the Italian Parliament, has approved in its first reading and unanimously new measures to fight the illegal distribution of copyright-protected content.

The initiative brings on board the Communication Authority (AgCom), the National Cybersecurity Agency and Internet Service Providers.

The target of the new anti-piracy measures will be the DNS and AgCom will be given the power to, in real time, order ISPs to block sites transmitting or distributing illegitimate content within 30 minutes.

The measure aims to protect not only pay-TV broadcasters, but also the movie industry, producers, authors, musicians and publishers.

In order to empower the regulator to fulfil the new task, all interested parties will be required to pay a contribution to AgCom.

Thanks to data provided by the banks, it will be easier to block the proceeds of those running clandestine broadcasting operations or pirate newsstands.

Pirates risk prison sentences of between six months and three years as well as a fine ranging from €2,582 to €15,493.

Commenting on the development, AgCom Commissioner Massimiliano Capitanio declared that “Italy is the first country in Europe to challenge digital mafias”.

The proposal will now go to the Senate for a final vote before entering into force.
https://advanced-television.com/2023...racy-measures/





Epic Games Wins Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Over Barriers to its Android App Store
Michael Liedtke

A federal court jury has decided that Google’s Android app store has been protected by anticompetitive barriers that have damaged smartphone consumers and software developers, dealing a blow to a major pillar of a technology empire.

The unanimous verdict reached Monday came after just three hours of deliberation following a four-week trial revolving around a lucrative payment system within Google’s Play Store. The store is the main place where hundreds of millions of people around the world download and install apps that work on smartphones powered by Google’s Android software.

Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, filed a lawsuit against Google three years ago, alleging that the internet search giant has been abusing its power to shield its Play Store from competition in order to protect a gold mine that makes billions of dollars annually. Just as Apple does for its iPhone app store, Google collects a commission ranging from 15% to 30% on digital transactions completed within apps.

Apple prevailed in a similar case that Epic brought against the iPhone app store. But that 2021 trial was decided by a federal judge in a ruling that is under appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine-person jury in the Play Store case apparently saw things through a different lens, even though Google technically allows Android apps to be downloaded from different stores — an option that Apple prohibits on the iPhone.

Just before the Play Store trial started, Google sought to avoid having a jury determine the outcome, only to have its request rejected by U.S. District Judge James Donato. Now it will be up to Donato to determine what steps Google will have to take to unwind its illegal behavior in the Play Store. The judge indicated he will hold hearings on the issue during the second week of January.

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney broke into a wide grin after the verdict was read and slapped his lawyers on the back and also shook the hand of a Google attorney, whom he thanked for his professional attitude during the proceedings.

“Victory over Google!” Sweeney wrote in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. In a company post, Epic hailed the verdict as “a win for all app developers and consumers around the world.”

Google plans to appeal the verdict, according to a statement from Wilson White, the company’s vice president of government affairs and public policy.

“Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform,” White said.

Depending on how the judge enforces the jury’s verdict, Google could lose billions of dollars in annual profit generated from its Play Store commissions. The company’s main source of revenue — digital advertising tied mostly to its search engine, Gmail and other services — won’t be directly affected by the trial’s outcome.

The jury reached its decision after listening to two hours of closing arguments from the lawyers on the opposing sides of the case.

Epic lawyer Gary Bornstein depicted Google as a ruthless bully that deploys a “bribe and block” strategy to discourage competition against its Play Store for Android apps. Google lawyer Jonathan Kravis attacked Epic as a self-interested game maker trying to use the courts to save itself money while undermining an ecosystem that has spawned billions of Android smartphones to compete against Apple and its iPhone.

Much of the lawyers’ dueling arguments touched upon the testimony from a litany of witnesses who came to court during the trial.

The key witnesses included Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who sometimes seemed like a professor explaining complex topics while standing behind a lectern because of a health issue, and Sweeney, who painted himself as a video game lover on a mission to take down a greedy tech titan.

In his closing argument for Epic, Bornstein railed against Google for exploiting its power over the Android software in a way that “has led to higher prices for developers and consumers, as well as less innovation and quality.”

Google has staunchly defended the commissions as a way to help recoup the more than $40 billion that it has poured into building into the Android software that it has been giving away since 2007 to manufacturers to compete against the iPhone.

“Android phones cannot compete against the iPhone without a great app store on them,” Kravis asserted in his closing argument. “The competition between the app stores is tied to the competition between the phones.”

But Bornstein ridiculed the notion of Google and Android competing against Apple and its incompatible iPhone software system. “Apple is not the ‘get out of jail for free’ card that Google wants it to be,” Bornstein told the jury.

Google also pointed to rival Android app stores such as the one that Samsung installs on its popular smartphones as evidence of a free market. Combined with the rival app stores pre-installed on devices made by other companies, more than 60% of Android phones offer alternative outlets for Android apps.

Epic, though, presented evidence asserting the notion that Google welcomes competition as a pretense, citing the hundreds of billions of dollars it has doled out to companies, such as game maker Activision Blizzard, to discourage them from opening rival app stores. Besides making these payments, Bornstein also urged the jury to consider the Google “scare screens” that pop up, warning consumers of potential security threats when they try to download Android apps from some of the alternatives to the Play Store.

“These are classic anticompetitive strategies used by dominant firms to protect their monopolies,” Bornstein said.

Google’s empire could be further undermined by another major antitrust trial in Washington that will be decided by a federal judge after hearing final arguments in May. That trial has cast a spotlight on Google’s cozy relationship with Apple in online search, the technology that turned Google into a household word a few years after two former Stanford University graduate students started the company in a Silicon Valley garage in 1998.
https://apnews.com/article/google-ep...c0d20a4d01b6b4





Mickey Mouse will soon Belong to You and Me — with some Caveats
Andrew Dalton

M-I-C-K-E-Y will soon belong to you and me.

With several asterisks, qualification and caveats, Mickey Mouse in his earliest form will be the leader of the band of characters, films and books that will become public domain as the year turns to 2024.

In a moment many close observers thought might never come, at least one version of the quintessential piece of intellectual property and perhaps the most iconic character in American pop culture will be free from Disney’s copyright as his first screen release, the 1928 short “Steamboat Willie,” featuring both Mickey and Minnie Mouse, becomes available for public use.

“This is it. This is Mickey Mouse. This is exciting because it’s kind of symbolic,” said Jennifer Jenkins, a professor of law and director of Duke’s Center for the Study of Public Domain, who writes an annual Jan. 1 column for “Public Domain Day.” ”I kind of feel like the pipe on the steamboat, like expelling smoke. It’s so exciting.”

U.S. law allows a copyright to be held for 95 years after Congress expanded it several times during Mickey’s life.

“It’s sometimes derisively referred to as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act,” Jenkins said. “That’s oversimplified because it wasn’t just Disney that was pushing for term extension. It was a whole group of copyright holders whose works were set to go into the public domain soon, who benefited greatly from the 20 years of extra protection.”

“Ever since Mickey Mouse’s first appearance in the 1928 short film Steamboat Willie, people have associated the character with Disney’s stories, experiences, and authentic products,” a Disney spokesperson said in a statement to The Associated Press. “That will not change when the copyright in the Steamboat Willie film expires.”

Current artists and creators will be able to make use of Mickey, but with major limits. It is only the more mischievous, rat-like, non-speaking boat captain in “Steamboat Willie” that has become public.

“More modern versions of Mickey will remain unaffected by the expiration of the Steamboat Willie copyright, and Mickey will continue to play a leading role as a global ambassador for the Walt Disney Company in our storytelling, theme park attractions, and merchandise,” Disney’s statement said.

Not every feature or personality trait a character displays is necessarily copyrightable, however, and courts could be busy in the coming years determining what’s inside and outside Disney’s ownership.

“We will, of course, continue to protect our rights in the more modern versions of Mickey Mouse and other works that remain subject to copyright,” the company said.

Disney still solidly and separately holds a trademark on Mickey as a corporate mascot and brand identifier, and the law forbids using the character deceptively to fool consumers into thinking a product is from the original creator. Anyone starting a film company or a theme park will not be free to make mouse ears their logo.

Disney’s statement said it “will work to safeguard against consumer confusion caused by unauthorized uses of Mickey and our other iconic characters.”

“Steamboat Willie,” directed by Walt Disney and his partner Ub Iwerks and among the first cartoons to have sound synced with its visuals, was actually the third cartoon featuring Mickey and Minnie the men made, but the first to be released. It features a more menacing Mickey captaining a boat and making musical instruments out of other animals.

In it, and in a clip from it used in the introduction to Disney animated films in recent years, Mickey whistles the 1910 tune “Steamboat Bill.” The song inspired the title of the Buster Keaton film “ Steamboat Bill Jr,” released just a few months before “Steamboat Willie,” which in turn may have inspired the title of the Disney short. The copyright wasn’t renewed on the Keaton film and it’s been in the public domain since 1956.

Another famous animal sidekick, Tigger, will join his friend Winnie the Pooh in the public domain as the book in which the bouncing tiger first appeared, “The House at Pooh Corner,” turns 96. Pooh, probably the most celebrated prior character to become public property, took on that status two years ago when A.A. Milne’s original “Winnie the Pooh” entered the public domain, resulting in some truly novel uses, including this year’s horror film “Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey.”

Young Mickey could get the same treatment.

“Now, the audience is going to set the terms,” said Cory Doctorow, an author and activist who advocates for broader public ownership of works.

Jan. 1, 2024, has long been circled on the calendars of public domain watchers, but some say it serves to show how overlong it takes for U.S. works to go public, and many properties with less pedigree than Winnie or Minnie can disappear or be forgotten with their copyrights murky.

“The fact that there are works that are still recognizable and enduring after 95 years is is frankly remarkable,” Doctorow said. “And it makes you think about the stuff that we must have lost, that would still have currency.”

Other properties entering the U.S. public domain are Charlie Chaplin’s film “Circus,” Virginia Woolf’s novel “Orlando” and Bertolt Brecht’s musical play “The Threepenny Opera.”

The current copyright term passed in 1998 brought the U.S. into closer sync with the European Union, making it unlikely Congress would extend it now. There are also now powerful companies, including Amazon with its fan-fiction-heavy publishing arm and Google with its books project, that in some cases advocate for the public domain.

“There’s actually more pushback now than there was 20 some years ago when the Mickey Mouse act was passed,” said Paul Heald, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in copyright and international intellectual property law.

In some instances, the U.S. goes well beyond Europe, and maintains copyright on work that is already public in its country of origin, though international agreements would allow the U.S. to adopt the shorter term of other nations on work produced there.

The books of George Orwell for example, including “Animal Farm” and “1984,” both published in the 1940s, are now public domain in his native Great Britain.

“Those works aren’t going to fall into the public domain in the United States for 25 years,” Heald said. “It would be literally costless for Congress to pass a law saying, ‘we now adopt the rule of the shorter term,’ which would throw a butt ton of works into the public domain over here.”
https://apnews.com/article/mickey-mo...3bc8cf87302b6f





Will Books Survive Spotify?
Kim Scott

Ms. Scott is the author of “Radical Candor" and was an executive at Google and Apple.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Spotify may have made it easier than ever for us to listen to an enormous trove of music, but it extracted so much money in doing so that it impoverished musicians. Now the company is turning its attention to books with a new offering. It will do the same thing to writers, whose audiobooks Spotify has begun streaming in a new and more damaging way.

We’ve read this story before. Tech platforms and their algorithms have a tendency to reward high-performing creators — the more users they get, the more likely they are to attract more. In Spotify’s case, that meant that in 2020, 90 percent of the royalties it paid out went to the top 0.8 percent of artists, according to an analysis by Rolling Stone.

That leaves the vast majority — including many within even that small group — struggling to earn a living. The promise of the business strategy laid out in the book “The Long Tail” was that a slew of niche creators would prosper on the internet. That has proved illusory for most content creators. It’s a winner-takes-all game; too often the tech platforms aggregating the content and the blockbusters win it all, starving the vast majority of creators. The result is a gradual deterioration of our culture, our understanding of ourselves and our collective memories.

This is why regulation is so crucial. Before writing books, I worked at Google, leading three large sales and operations teams and before that, I was a senior policy adviser at the Federal Communications Commission. What I learned is that today’s tech platforms are different from the kind of monopolies of an earlier era that inspired our regulatory framework. Their networks can have powerful positive or negative impacts. We don’t want to regulate away the value they can create, but the damage they can cause is devastating. We need a regulatory framework that can distinguish between them.

To explain why content creators continue to lose at the hands of distributors/platforms, it’s helpful to understand the three mutually reinforcing networks that characterize most tech platforms.

A successful tech “content aggregation” platform has three networks: content creators, users and advertisers. Many networks have so-called positive externalities, which effectively mean that growth builds more growth and usability. A telephone network that allows you to call only half your friends would be far less than half as valuable as one that allowed you to call all your friends.

The network effects of a platform are more complicated because each component reinforces the others. The more content, the more users; the more users, the more content, and so on. Once the platform has enough content to get enough users, then it can also get advertisers. If the platform shares advertisers’ money with the content creators, more content gets created, which attracts more users, which attracts more advertisers, and so on. If the ads are relevant, nonintrusive, and do not invade one’s privacy, that is good for users, because the advertisers are paying for the content. It is also good for content creators, because more users will interact with content they don’t have to pay for. It can be a virtuous cycle.

However, when the platform extracts too much and shares too little, it harms the rest of the ecosystem. Once a tech platform has a critical mass of users, it can start squeezing content creators. Most people can’t afford to work for free, so they quit creating. How, then, does the tech platform continue to grow? Often by sending users to lower-quality content that is free or almost free to produce. For example, songs seemingly created by A.I. are apparently being uploaded to Spotify and recommended to listeners. And of course, the platform may simply serve irrelevant, intrusive, privacy-invading ads or even sell their users’ data.

Let’s recall what Spotify did to the music industry. Streaming royalties are a pittance compared with à la carte sales — the pricing model changed to Spotify’s current $10.99 per month for access to millions of songs from around $10 for a downloaded album, $13 for a compact disc and $24 for a vinyl record a decade ago. The result? Many would-be musicians cannot afford to pursue their art. That is why, as of 2022, the market for new music is shrinking; the growth in the market is coming from old songs.

On Nov. 8, Spotify started its audiobook program in the United States in an attempt to replace its previous à la carte audiobook sales system. Under this new offering, Spotify premium subscribers get 15 hours of audiobooks a month for no additional cost. The company is already wooing publishers and authors with promises of new readers, much as it promised the music industry an expanded audience.

But the largest demographic group of its premium subscribers is the same as those who already listen to a lot of audiobooks (18-to-24-year-olds, followed by 25-to-34-year-olds). Inevitably some in this group will transition from paying for audiobooks to listening to a portion of those audiobooks as part of their existing Spotify subscription.

Even assuming Spotify attracts some net new readers, those gains will be offset by another company invention: While Spotify struck different deals with different publishing houses, in general, authors will be paid in full only if users finish the book. If the user listens to only a portion of the book, the author gets paid only for the amount of time the user listened. Given that many books are sold but never finished, many authors will likely make significantly less under this model.

Spotify will also likely put a thumb on the scale of which audiobooks find an audience. It is, seemingly, pushing users to old, out-of-copyright books like, bizarrely, works of Karl Marx. Or it’s pushing content from blockbuster artists with whom it has a relationship. Some users told me they were being sold on the new Britney Spears autobiography, regardless of whether they were a person likely to be interested in Britney Spears or not. The middle class of book creators looks set to be even more squeezed, and revenue seems likely to be even more concentrated in the 1 percent of authors.

Furthermore, the complexity of auditing Spotify’s reporting on who listened to how much of what and how that translates to royalties sounds like a fresh hell for writers and publishers alike.

The publishing industry has already been squeezed by the rise of Amazon and a broader industry consolidation that has narrowed success to a smaller field of winners, but the business has remained relatively intact because even Amazon still prices books by the title. If the industry moves to a Spotify pricing model for audiobooks on other platforms — like Audible — that, combined with the company algorithm, will damage publishers and authors alike. Authors: We can act collectively. I asked my publisher not to include my books in this new offering and encourage you to do the same. My publisher honored my request.

Spotify could take the long view, and not abuse its market power to extract more from the already paltry payments to writers. After all, it is in Spotify’s long-term interest to keep the quality of music and books high. However, if I were chief executive of Spotify, I too would be a lot more fixated on the company’s growth and profitability than enriching musicians and writers. Expecting anything different is not realistic. As for consumers — trying to pressure them to boycott a dominant service because of systemic problems is probably the least effective solution.

A tech platform should not be allowed to use its market power to steadily decrease payments to content creators, to sell user data and to price gouge advertisers. Obviously, those are problems that go beyond Spotify. Amazon, Facebook, Google, TikTok, Twitter and other tech platforms pose the same risks as well. Regulators should create rules that can distinguish between the positive and negative impacts these platforms create.

In the best of times it’s hard to make a living as a writer or a musician. The best of times, these are not. Now more than ever we need new music and ideas to remind us of our shared humanity. We need to feed — not starve — our artists.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/o...algorithm.html





Netflix Takes Big Data Transparency Step, Releasing Viewing Numbers for 18,000 Titles

'The Night Agent' and season two of 'Ginny & Georgia' were the most watched shows in the first half of 2023.
Rick Porter

Netflix has taken its biggest step toward data transparency yet with the release of an exhaustive list of viewing time on the platform in the first half of 2023.

The list includes worldwide viewing for more than 18,000 movies and seasons of TV (18,214, to be exact) between January and June. Those 18,214 titles all had at least 50,000 hours of viewing over those six months, encompassing about 99 percent of all viewing on Netflix, vp strategy and analysis Lauren Smith told reporters during a presentation of the data on Tuesday. It is the deepest dive into viewing that Netflix (or any other streamer) has ever made public.

Among the highlights: The Night Agent was the biggest title on Netflix in the first half of 2023, racking up 812.1 million hours of viewing. Season two of Ginny & Georgia was second at 665.1 million hours, followed by Korean drama The Glory (622.8 million hours). Wednesday ranked fourth at 507.7 million hours of viewing, despite being released in November 2022.

The company is using total hours viewed in this report as a way to measure engagement by its users rather than the “view” formula (total viewing hours divided by running time) it employs to compare titles in its weekly top 10 lists.

Original series and movies dominate the top of the chart, but Smith said the split between original and licensed titles was more even: About 55 percent of viewing was for originals and 45 percent was for licensed shows and films. Suits, which dominated the Nielsen U.S. streaming charts for much of the summer and fall, had a combined 599 million hours of viewing worldwide on Netflix across all nine seasons. The show’s first season ranked highest, coming in 67th place with 129.1 million hours.

At the other end, a little more than 20 percent of the titles on Netflix’s list (3,813 in all) had very little viewing. The company rounded them to 100,000 hours, but they would fall between 50,000 and 149,999 hours — barely a drop in the streamer’s more than 100 billion total hours of viewing for the six months.

As for the timing of the data release, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos said the company has been on a “continuum” of becoming more transparent as its streaming business has matured. Early on, he said, “It wasn’t in our interest to be that transparent because we were building a new business, and we didn’t want to give any competitors a roadmap. Creators liked it too, because they were free from the pressure of ratings.”

Sarandos acknowledged, though, that Netflix’s lack of transparency eventually had the unintended consequence of “creating an atmosphere of mistrust over time.”

“This is probably more information than you need, but it creates a better environment for us, for the guilds” — who won some key concessions on data transparency in settling labor strikes this year — “for producers and creators, and for the press,” Sarandos said.

Netflix plans to continue issuing semiannual reports of its viewing time, but Sarandos said he wasn’t sure other streamers would follow his company’s lead (Netflix has the advantage of being the oldest and biggest platform, after all). “They’re all running their businesses as they see fit, and they’re all at different places in their existence,” Sarandos said of other platforms. “We thought very differently about it 10 years ago, too.”

Netflix’s top 20 titles for the first half of 2023 are below.

Netflix's Top 20, January-June 2023

The streamer releases its worldwide viewing totals for the first half of the year. Figures are millions of hours watched.

The Night Agent season 1
812.1
Ginny & Georgia season 2
665.1
The Glory season 1
622.8
Wednesday season 1
507.7
Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story
503
You season 4
440.6
La Reina del Sur season 3*
429.6
Outer Banks season 3
402.5
Ginny & Georgia season 1
302.1
FUBAR season 1
266.2
Manifest season 4
262.6
Kaleidoscope
252.5
Firefly Lane season 2
251.5
The Mother
249.9
Physical: 100 season 1
235
Crash Course in Romance
234.8
Love Is Blind season 4
229.7
Beef
221.1
The Diplomat season 1
214.1
Luther: The Fallen Sun
209.7

*Not available worldwide.
Source: NetflixCreated with Datawrapper

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...es-1235745500/





Another Cable TV Company Announces It Will Shut Down Its TV Service Because of “Extreme Price Increases from Programmers”
Luke Bouma

Over the last year a growing number of small cable TV companies have announced that they will shut down their TV service. You can add DUO Broadband to that list. They announced that they will shut down both their traditional cable TV and streaming TV services soon.

According to DUO Broadband, they are being forced to make this change because of the “extreme price increases from programmers” that make running TV unprofitable. This means customers in Kentucky counties will soon lose access to their cable TV service.

This news comes as just last week we learned Comcast would be raising its price. Also, it comes just days after we learned another small cable TV company shutdown with no warning, leaving customers without internet or TV service.

Customers will need to switch to a streaming service like Hulu, Fubo, Sling TV, or YouTube TV. Or use a satellite TV service.

On their website, Duo Broadband posted this statement:

TV delivery is changing, and DUO Broadband has to change as well.

All DUO TV Services to Be Discontinued

Streaming TV will end 1/4/2024

Because of extreme price increases from programmers, we will phase out our streaming TV service rather than pass along large price increases to our customers. The good news is that you have excellent alternatives for your continued TV service. The MyBundle Streaming marketplace is a great resource to find your best options.

Traditional cable TV will end 12/31/2024

Due to the extreme costs associated with cable TV systems, maintenance, and facilities DUO Broadband will no longer offer traditional cable television. Extreme increases in programming rates would have required significant, continued price increases that would be a burden for our customers. Larger national providers are able to negotiate better rates and can keep your rates lower than we could.
https://cordcuttersnews.com/another-...m-programmers/





Cable Lobby and Republicans Fight Proposed Ban on Early Termination Fees

Customers should be allowed to cancel cable TV without penalty, Democrats say.
Jon Brodkin

The Federal Communications Commission has taken a step toward prohibiting early termination fees charged by cable and satellite TV providers. If given final approval, the FCC action would also require cable and satellite providers to provide a prorated credit or rebate to customers who cancel before a billing period ends.

The new rules are being floated in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that the FCC voted to approve yesterday in a 3–2 vote, with both Republicans dissenting. The NPRM seeks public comment on the proposed rules and could lead to a final vote in a few months or so.

"Today's action proposes to adopt customer service protections that prohibit cable operators and DBS (Direct Broadcast Satellite) providers from imposing a fee for the early termination of a cable or DBS video service contract," the FCC said. "Additionally, the NPRM recommends the adoption of customer service protections to require cable and DBS providers to grant subscribers a prorated credit or rebate for the remaining whole days in a monthly or periodic billing cycle after the subscriber cancels service."

FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said, "Consumers are tired of these junk fees. They now have more choices when it comes to video content. But these friction-filled tactics to keep us subscribing to our current providers are aggravating and unfair. So today we kick off a rulemaking to put an end to these practices."

Cable lobby group NCTA-The Internet & Television Association opposes the plan and said it will submit comments to support "consumer choice and competitive parity."

"We do not support banning consumers from choosing a service plan with discounted rates in exchange for long-term service agreements that may include early termination provisions," the NCTA said. "The FCC should understand that its proposals would amount to rate regulation and result in consumers having fewer options."

Republican laments “march toward regulating rates”

FCC Republican Brendan Carr objected to what he called a form of rate regulation. "I cannot sign on to the Biden administration's inexorable march toward regulating rates," he said.

Carr pointed out that traditional MVPDs (Multichannel Video Programming Distributors) "are bleeding market share to new, unregulated competitors," namely online streaming services. He also accused the FCC of exceeding its regulatory authority.

"It's clear that the Administration has decided that the FCC is going to regulate rates, no matter how competitive the market and without regard to the FCC's legal authority," Carr said. "We saw it in big proceedings like net neutrality and digital equity, and we see it in more targeted proceedings like this one." Carr was referring to recent 3–2 votes on net neutrality regulations and rules that prohibit discrimination in access to broadband services.

Simington argued that consumers will end up paying more because contracts with early termination fees have discounted monthly rates. He asked whether the FCC believes that cable and satellite providers "will, out of their gracious love of consumers, voluntarily fully retain today's long-term contractual discounts while merely doing without ETF revenue." He said the FCC's "so-called 'pro-consumer' proposal today requires angelic forbearance on the parts of MVPDs to have actual pro-consumer effect."

"Does the commission imagine that the invisible hand of this highly regulated market will keep contractual prices level after ETFs [early termination fees] are removed—those same market forces that the commission evidently discounts today by undercutting the commercial judgment of MVPDs)?" Simington asked.

Democrats back potential ban

Democrats Geoffrey Starks and Anna Gomez joined Rosenworcel in voting for the cable-fee NPRM. "I know what it's like to cancel a service and get slapped with a startlingly high termination fee. I'd hazard a guess that most of us do—it's an experience that's all too common," Starks said.

The FCC will seek input on both positive and negative aspects of early termination fees, Starks said:

We have to understand how fees like this may be used in MVPD contracts. Do they unfairly prohibit consumers from switching providers? Are there circumstances in which they may benefit consumers—for example, by giving consumers a choice between a costlier, month-to-month contract and a cheaper, longer-term contract with an ETF? Even if those situations exist, are there ways we can protect consumers from unreasonable fees? These are the questions we're asking today. I look forward to seeing the record develop.

Gomez said that "it is imperative that we understand whether such billing practices have the effect of inhibiting subscribers from choosing the video services they want or result in consumers paying fees for video services they did not choose to receive as we consider these rules."

Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge called the FCC vote "a huge win for consumers that have felt trapped by expensive and restrictive cable contracts," saying that "early termination fees are anti-consumer restrictions that make it difficult for households to switch video providers or even change their subscriptions."

To justify the FCC's authority to ban early termination fees, a draft of the NPRM released before the meeting cited the 1984 Cable Act's consumer protection section. The section "addressed one particular type of consumer protection—'customer service requirements,' providing specifically that '[a] franchising authority may require... provisions for enforcement of... customer service requirements,'" the NPRM said. "Although the term 'customer service' is not defined in the statute, the legislative history of the 1984 Cable Act defined 'customer service' as 'the direct business relation between a cable operator and a subscriber' and 'customer service requirements' as including requirements related to 'rebates and credits to consumers.'"

The FCC also cited the authority "to regulate the provision of direct-to-home satellite services" and to impose "public interest or other requirements for providing video programming" on DBS providers.

Data-breach and robocall rules also adopted

In another 3–2 vote, the FCC approved expanded data-breach notification rules for telecom providers. You can read about the rules and objections from Republican lawmakers in this article we published before the meeting.

The FCC also approved new rules designed to combat robocalls and robotexts. "The new rules close a loophole through which unscrupulous robocallers and robotexters inundate consumers with unwanted and illegal robocalls and robotexts," the FCC said. "The new rules make it unequivocally clear that comparison shopping websites and lead generators must obtain consumer consent to receive robocalls and robotexts one seller at a time—rather than have a single consent apply to multiple telemarketers at once."

The robocall order also "allow[s] the FCC to 'red flag' certain numbers, requiring mobile carriers to block texts from those numbers," and "codif[ies] that Do-Not-Call list protections apply to text messaging, making it illegal for marketing texts to be sent to numbers on the registry," the FCC said.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tch-contracts/





FCC Issues Final Denial of $885M Starlink Subsidy
Devin Coldewey

The FCC has made a final denial of Starlink’s application for $885 million in public funds to expand its orbital communications infrastructure to cover parts of rural America, saying the company “failed to demonstrate that it could deliver the promised service.”

As previously reported, the money in question was part of the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, a multibillion-dollar program to subsidize the rollout of internet service in places where private companies have previously decided it’s too expensive or distant to do so. The $885 million was first set aside for Starlink in 2020, corresponding to the company’s bid on how much connectivity it could provide, at what cost and to which regions.

The FCC explained that this first application was a high-level, short one, and that those qualifying for that would receive closer scrutiny. For instance, one organization assigned over a billion dollars in funds turned out to be a regional operation that couldn’t possibly expand the way it hoped to.

In Starlink’s case, it was determined last summer that although the satellite internet proposal had promise, it was a “still developing technology” that required the user to purchase a dish, then priced at $600. Many people won’t pay that much for internet for a year, so it’s a serious consideration given the target demographic of people lacking resources. (In fact the FCC had considered not even letting orbital communications companies apply, but decided to allow them to compete on their merits.)

This was in addition to “numerous financial and technical deficiencies” the agency identified in the proposal and the company’s operations. That’s not to say it isn’t a well-run company with a good service for some, but that for the purposes of this auction and award, there were serious questions:

After reviewing all of the information submitted by Starlink, the Bureau ultimately concluded that Starlink had not shown that it was reasonably capable of fulfilling RDOF’s requirements to deploy a network of the scope, scale, and size required to serve the 642,925 model locations in 35 states for which it was the winning bidder.

Starlink asked that the decision be reviewed, as is their right in this situation, claiming among other things that it had been held to an “inappropriately onerous standard.” It (apparently, for the relevant passages are redacted in the latest order) argued that although short-term testing showed declining speeds and other metrics, the company had a plan to launch more satellites and would be able to grow the network as claimed. It even leaned on the promise of SpaceX’s super-heavy launch vehicle Starship as evidence for these claims.

As the FCC points out, though:

A the time of the Bureau’s decision, Starship had not yet been launched. Indeed, even as of today [i.e. over a year later], Starship has not yet had a successful launch; all of its attempted launches have failed. Based on Starlink’s previous assertions about its plans to launch its second-generation satellites via Starship, and the information that was available at the time, the [Wireline Competition] Bureau necessarily considered Starlink’s continuing inability to successfully launch the Starship rocket when making predictive judgment about its ability to meet its RDOF obligations.

In a footnote it is pointed out that it was only after the denial was issued that SpaceX announced it would not be using Starship after all for the second generation of Starlink satellites.

Basically, though they see the merit to the approach, they couldn’t be 100% sure that this was the best use of the better part of a billion dollars. Perhaps in the next fund.

The two Republican FCC Commissioners, Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington, dissented from this decision. Simington perhaps rightly points out that “many RDOF recipients deployed no service at any speed to any location at all,” while Starlink was serving half a million subscribers at the time of rejection, many in areas not served by other broadband options. He dismisses the launch problems as quibbles in the Bureau’s “motivated reasoning.”

Carr, for his part, calls it politics: “After Elon Musk acquired Twitter and used it to voice his own political and ideological views without a filter, President Biden gave federal agencies a greenlight to go after him…Elon Musk has become ‘Progressive Enemy No. 1.’ Today’s decision certainly fits the Biden administration’s pattern of regulatory harassment.”

Of course, the Starlink denial took place well before that acquisition and Elon Musk’s subsequent fall from grace (what of it he had), and the FCC is simply reaffirming the reasoning here today, not issuing it fresh. That’s quite a factual error to lead with.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/12/fc...rlink-subsidy/





Marketing Company Claims That It Actually Is Listening to Your Phone and Smart Speakers to Target Ads

It’s True. Your devices are listening to you.
Joseph Cox

A marketing team within media giant Cox Media Group (CMG) claims it has the capability to listen to ambient conversations of consumers through embedded microphones in smartphones, smart TVs, and other devices to gather data and use it to target ads, according to a review of CMG marketing materials by 404 Media and details from a pitch given to an outside marketing professional. Called “Active Listening,” CMG claims the capability can identify potential customers “based on casual conversations in real time.”

The news signals that what a huge swath of the public has believed for years—that smartphones are listening to people in order to deliver ads—may finally be a reality in certain situations. Until now, there was no evidence that such a capability actually existed, but its myth permeated due to how sophisticated other ad tracking methods have become.

It is not immediately clear if the capability CMG is advertising and claims works is being used on devices in the market today, but the company notes it is “a marketing technique fit for the future. Available today.” 404 Media also found a representative of the company on LinkedIn explicitly asking interested parties to contact them about the product. One marketing professional pitched by CMG on the tech said a CMG representative explained the prices of the service to them.

“What would it mean for your business if you could target potential clients who are actively discussing their need for your services in their day-to-day conversations? No, it's not a Black Mirror episode—it's Voice Data, and CMG has the capabilities to use it to your business advantage,” CMG’s website reads.

Do you know anything else about Active Listening? Were you pitched this product, or do you work at CMG? I would love to hear from you. Using a non-work device, you can message me securely on Signal at +44 20 8133 5190. Otherwise, send me an email at joseph@404media.co.

The part of CMG advertising the capability is CMG Local Solutions. CMG itself is owned by Apollo Global Management and Cox Enterprises, which includes the ISP Cox Communications. CMG operates a wide array of local news television and radio stations.

With Active Listening, CMG claims to be able to “target your advertising to the EXACT people you are looking for,” according to its website. The goal is to target potential clients or customers based on what they say in “their day to day conversations,” the website adds. Specifically, those could include:

The car lease ends in a month—we need a plan.

A mini van would be perfect for us.

Do I see mold on the ceiling?

We need to get serious about planning for retirement.

This AC is on it’s [sic] last leg!

We need a better mortgage rate.

Clients can “claim” a territory where they want to use CMG’s services, which are available in a 10 or 20 mile radius, the website says. After setup, “Active Listening begins and is analyzed via AI to detect pertinent conversations via smartphones, smart tvs and other devices,” the website adds. CMG also claims it installs a tracking pixel on its client’s website to monitor the return on investment (ROI).
A screenshot of CMG's website.

With an audience created, CMG then delivers adverts to these people through streaming TV, streaming audio, display ads, YouTube, and Google and Bing search, the website says.

“The result? Unprecedented understanding of consumer behavior, so we can deliver personalized ads that make your target audience think: wow, they must be a mind reader,” another section of CMG’s website reads.

Claims about this capability raises obvious and immediate legal concerns; intercepting communications without proper consent can violate wiretapping laws. CMG’s website addresses this with a section that starts “We know what you are thinking…”

“Is this legal? YES- it is totally legal for phones and devices to listen to you. That's because consumers usually give consent when accepting terms and conditions of software updates or app downloads,” the website says.

Beyond CMG’s website, very little information is available about the capability, including how exactly the data is gathered, be that via a software development kit (SDK) bundled into apps, or via collection at another point. For its part, Apple does alert iPhone users when an app is accessing the device’s microphone with a small icon in the UI.

The marketing professional pitched by CMG told 404 Media that after a call with the company, they disabled microphone access on much of their own technology: “I immediately removed all my Amazon Echo devices and locked down microphone permissions on things like my phone as receiving confirmation they are doing things like this have confirmed my worst fears and I, for one, will not take part in it,” they said.

CMG says “the ROI is already impressive” and is actively soliciting potential customers, though. On LinkedIn, Chris Marxmiller, a senior sales consultant at CMG, invites people in his bio to “Ask me about our NEW product - ACTIVE LISTENING.” Marxmiller did not respond to a request for comment which asked for more information on the Active Listening product.

CMG lists a number of other companies as its partners and publishers. These include Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. None of those companies responded to a request for comment on whether they were aware of this capability or whether it was in active use.

Neither CMG or Cox Communications responded to a request for comment.

Sam Cole and Jason Koebler contributed reporting.
https://www.404media.co/cmg-cox-medi...ads-marketing/





Welcome to the Ad-Free Internet

As the rich pay to banish commercials, advertisers hunt for their attention elsewhere

For a preview of what lies wrapped beneath the Christmas tree, log in to Facebook. The social network tracks its users’ behaviour so intimately that it is able to personalise ads with a precision that sometimes verges on mind-reading. Its ad-stuffed newsfeed at this time of year embodies the internet’s great trade-off: consumers enjoy free services, but must submit to bombardment with commercials from companies that know who has been naughty or nice.

Yet increasingly, those with deep enough pockets are getting the chance to escape the online admen. Last month Facebook’s owner, Meta, began offering customers in Europe ad-free subscriptions to Facebook and its sister network, Instagram, for €9.99 ($10.85) a month. In October X (formerly Twitter) launched an ad-free option. In the same month TikTok, a fast-growing Chinese-owned video app, announced that it was testing an ad-free subscription. The following month Snapchat, another social-media rival, said it was doing the same.

Social networks are not the only medium allowing the group that advertisers most covet—the better-off with money to splurge—to wriggle beyond their reach. From video and audio to news and gaming, a combination of regulation and technological change is encouraging media companies to offer alternatives. “We are in a world where it will be increasingly possible to avoid ads,” says Brian Wieser of Madison and Wall, an advertising consultancy. As the rich opt out of commercials on some platforms, advertisers are therefore looking for new places to catch them.

Grabbing the attention of well-heeled consumers via old media has been getting harder for some time. As the internet has eroded the value of their ads, newspapers and magazines have made a decade-long pivot to other sources of revenue. Whereas in 2014 only 5% of adults in rich countries paid for a subscription to an online news site, this year 13% did, according to Oxford University’s Reuters Institute. During the same period ad-supported radio has been giving way to streamed music and podcasts on platforms like Spotify, 40% of whose 575m users cough up $10.99 a month to listen ad-free.

And now, for a break from commercials

Television, on which ads are worth $160bn a year, is well into its own digital transition. Last year streaming overtook cable and broadcast to become the most-watched tv in America, according to Nielsen, a firm which tracks viewership. Whereas linear tv is stuffed with ads, three-quarters of American streaming customers pay to skip ads, estimates Antenna, another data firm. Streamers such as Netflix and Disney+ have launched ad-supported tiers in the past year or so; Amazon’s Prime Video will follow suit shortly. But they show only about four minutes of commercials per hour, compared with more like 15 on American broadcast tv. As viewers drift to streaming, television’s ad inventory in America will fall by a quarter in the next four years, estimates Mr Wieser.

Social media seemed like a safer space for ads. For years Facebook promised it was “free and always will be”. Two things have changed that. One is regulation. Meta’s ad-free plan in Europe follows a series of court rulings establishing that, under regional data-protection rules, tech firms must get users’ consent before showing them personalised ads. Rather than making its ads less effective, Meta is offering the alternative of no ads, for a price. (Privacy campaigners say that the price is so high as to be prohibitive; expect more legal battles in the new year.) Meta will not launch the plan elsewhere unless it has to: “We will always advocate for an internet funded by ads,” it said on December 4th. But other countries may get ideas. Britain and India are sharpening their digital-privacy laws. Tech firms are also watching Brazil, Indonesia and Australia (where Snapchat is testing its ad-free option).

The other change comes from the tech platforms. Since 2021 Apple has let customers opt out of being tracked by apps, crippling the ability to personalise ads and triggering a rush to alternative methods of monetisation. Snapchat launched a $3.99-per-month subscription last year offering extra features; this September it had 5m subscribers. Mobile games, which often rely on ads, have moved towards alternatives such as in-app purchases and subscriptions, says Tianyi Gu of Newzoo, a firm of analysts. Apple and Netflix are among those to have launched ad-free game subscriptions.

The existence of ad-free options does not guarantee take-up. Few Europeans will pay for Facebook or Instagram, believes Eric Seufert, author of the “Mobile Dev Memo” newsletter. “Meta will use the low adoption rate to champion the ad-supported business model as a consumer preference,” he predicts. However, as Meta’s networks deal increasingly in video, switching off their ads may become more tempting. YouTube Premium, which charges $13.99 per month to go ad-free, had 80m subscribers last year (the latest figure available), behind only Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime among Western platforms.

Children in particular are increasingly off-limits to ads by default. Snapchat said in August that most of its ad-targeting tools would no longer be available to use on under-18s in the eu and Britain, to comply with new privacy rules. Meta has made Facebook and Instagram entirely ad-free for European youngsters while it works out its legal position.

Whoever pays to opt out of ads tends for now to be wealthier than those who sit through them. Among those paying for news online, eight out of ten are from medium- or high-income households, according to the Reuters Institute. As well as having more money, the wealthy tend to be more privacy-conscious: the richest users are likeliest to decline to be tracked on their iPhones, says Mr Seufert.

Still, early indications are that, in tv at least, the difference may not be big. In America the highest-earning households make up 9% of ad-supported subscribers and 11% of ad-free ones, finds Antenna. Mr Wieser suggests that, as consumers are squeezed and spend less on nights out, they may in fact be more inclined to pay for ad-free tv.

Either way, admen are confident that they have other ways to reach valuable consumers. Worldwide ad spending (excluding American political spots) will reach $889bn in 2023 and grow by 5-6% annually for the next five years, led by digital ads, forecasts Groupm, which places ads on behalf of brands. The number of ads seen on television may fall, but streamers’ ability to target the commercials will make them much more effective than conventional tv spots, argues Mark Read, head of wpp, the world’s largest ad company and Groupm’s parent firm. Streamers’ shorter ad breaks will be better at holding viewers’ attention. “Our clients understand that a two- to three-minute ad load is more valuable than a nine-minute ad load,” says Mr Read. In addition, streamers are eating into the time spent watching ad-free public-service broadcasters such as Britain’s bbc.

Advertisers can also fall back on platforms from which the rich have no escape. Spending on out-of-home media—billboards and the like—has grown by 7% this year, and is now above its pre-pandemic level, according to Magna, a research arm of Interpublic, another big ad agency. Sponsorship of sports events and the like remains immune to digital disruption. And other kinds of corporate persuasion, such as public relations, may benefit as it gets harder to reach people via old-school ads, says Mr Wieser.

Perhaps the biggest new advertising opportunity is in areas that never previously showed ads at all. Amazon’s ruse of selling ads alongside search results on its retail site—something it began doing little more than a decade ago—will earn around $45bn this year, more than the entire global newspaper industry did. Last year Uber started selling ads in its ride-hailing and delivery apps, personalising them using its own data on its customers (something Apple’s anti-tracking changes do not affect). It expects to make $1bn next year from this new sideline. Marriott hotels launched an ad network last year to send targeted messages to guests on their in-room tvs. United Airlines is said to be planning to show personalised ads to passengers during their in-flight entertainment. Groupm predicts that this kind of “retail media” will be worth more than tv advertising by 2028.

Even on social networks there will be ways for brands to reach people who pay to go ad-free. Advertisers increasingly rope in charismatic “influencers”, who promote products to users who follow them and share their content by choice. wpp recently took a group of them to Lapland to visit Santa’s home, as part of a promotion for Coca-Cola. Users who pay to block ads in some areas are still likely to find them popping up in new ones.
https://www.economist.com/business/2...-free-internet





Taylor Swift Fans Slam Her for Charging 'Ridiculous and 'Insane' Fee to Rent Her Extended Eras Tour Film for 48 Hours and Demand 'the Crazy Prices Stop': 'We are in a Cost of Living Crisis'
Milly Veitch

Taylor Swift fans have been left fuming after the extended version of her Eras Tour film was released on Wednesday, but can only be rented for just 48 hours for an extortionate fee.

The singer celebrated her 34th birthday on Wednesday and to mark the occasion, Prime Video released Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour (Extended Version) in the UK, the US and Canada.

A homage to her 10 studio albums to date, The Eras Tour has been described by the singer-songwriter as a journey through all of her musical 'eras'.

The new version of the concert film includes three bonus songs not seen in theatres— Wildest Dreams, The Archer and Long Live.

Angry fans took to X, formerly known as Twitter, to slam the decision and complain that they had already spent huge amounts of money on her 'crazy prices' to support her.

One person wrote: 'happy birthday taylor swift or whatever but girl im not giving u $20 for 48 hours of the movie im sorry GIVE US THE OPTION TO BUY'.

Another echoed: 'I'm sorry but almost $20 to RENT the film is way too much. I would be wanting to buy it for that price. @taylorswift13 you can't keep raising the prices so it's nice numbers for you because it's not worth it for some of us'.

A third added: 'I throw money at Taylor Swift stuff so often but even I cannot justify $19.89 to rent the Eras Tour movie lol if it was to buy, I would already own it.'

While someone else tweeted: 'As much as I love Taylor Swift making a movie £15.99 just to rent it is f***ing mental. We are in a cost of living crisis babe.'

A fifth wrote: 'I love Taylor Swift but $19.89 to rent a movie at home is insane. She could've made it $13 if she wanted to be cute with the price. Time to p*rate it.'

Taylor's fans have criticised the songwriter for the 'mental' price and for only letting people rent the film instead of allowing them to buy it to keep or stream as part of their subscription

Taylor's fans have criticised the songwriter for the 'mental' price and for only letting people rent the film instead of allowing them to buy it to keep or stream as part of their subscription

And a sixth agreed, saying: 'Bro I like Taylor swift but you could never catch me spending 20 f***ing dollars to RENT A GODDAMN MOVIE JESUS CHRIST.'

Another disappointed fan said: 'I’ve paid over £400 to go and see Taylor Swift and stop over night, a further £40 cinema ticket and merch. I love Her and Her music but when will the crazy prices stop? £16 to rent a movie once is ridiculous, that’s making me choose between eating for 2 days and watching a movie.'

While an eighth fumed: 'taylor swift has lost her mind if she thinks i’m going to pay $20 to rent a movie for 48 hours like actually what planet do you live on'.

A ninth bemoaned: 'I wish that I could rent it for Taylor Swift's birthday today, but I can't do that due to budget restraints'.

And another said: '£16 to RENTTTTTT that taylor swift movie is insaneeeeeee' while one former fan declared: 'oh $19.89 to RENT and not own… i am DONE with taylor swift'.

It comes after it was estimated that the Eras Tour movie has grossed $250 million worldwide while the tour itself pushed Taylor's own net worth to $1.1billion in October, according to Forbes.

The film was history making - it generated $26 million in pre-sale tickets alone and broke the single-day ticket sales records in a mere three hours.

The movie has even been nominated for a Golden Globe in a brand new category - the award for Cinematic and Box-Office Achievement.

It will face competition from a slew of other impressive films: Barbie, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, John Wick: Chapter 4, Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 1, Oppenheimer, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, and The Super Mario Bros.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...Tour-film.html





Limewire Is Back, But AI’s Making The Music This Time

The brand that drew the ire of the music business in the 2000s is coming back as an AI music creation platform
Ethan Millman

Over a decade ago, the major record labels killed the once-beloved file-sharing site LimeWire and buried it in a sea of lawsuits and fines over rampant copyright infringement on the platform that turned the music industry on its head.

Thirteen years later, the brand is back in the music business. But this time, LimeWire is focusing on a different industry-altering technology in artificial intelligence, and it just launched an AI music generator that allows users to create AI-made tracks at the push of a button.

LimeWire’s legacy in music is complicated. Along with other file-sharing sites like Napster, LimeWire drastically changed how consumers and in some ways started the shift into what would become the streaming model. But it also vastly devalued music and drew the vitriol of major labels, who sought billions in damages over unlicensed songs being shared on the platform.

The irony of LimeWire going from offering one sensitive music technology to another is not lost on the company. While the old LimeWire’s fate was sealed over copyright issues, the new AI music-maker only uses licensed music for its training data, the company’s chief operating officer Marcus Feistl says. (Feistl declined to specify its licensing partners.) The company also worked with Universal Music Group last year to license NFTs. This iteration of LimeWire, at least, doesn’t want another legal fight with the music business.

“I think it actually fits the brand perfectly, to be honest. It’s again a very disruptive approach to the music industry,” Feistl says. “But at the same time, compared to the initial LimeWire, we’re taking a bit more of a cautious and careful approach in things like licensing of the content, where we get the training data.”

The only link between the original LimeWire and the new company is the brand name, which its current ownership purchased last year as it originally looked to turn LimeWire into an NFT platform. The focus has since shifted toward AI creation, with the company buying BlueWillow — an AI image generator similar to MidJourney — earlier this year.

The LimeWire owners aren’t the first to try to capitalize on the infamous branding of early music internet companies; Napster is now a legal streaming service as the streaming platform previously known as Rhapsody bought the Napster brand and took on the more famous name in 2016.

LimeWire’s AI music studio, unveiled on Tuesday, lets users describe the track they want to hear through a written prompt such as mood or genre or via uploaded pictures such as colors and shapes to make tracks looking to match the image. (Google launched a similar product MusicLM in May.)

Like its competitors, the music LimeWire’s software creates is hit or miss. The results don’t always match the description (the picture-to-music function couldn’t make songs that matched the vibes of the images we uploaded) and the music can sound low-quality and muddy. But the results can also be impressively accurate, like when we asked the AI to make a basic indie rock track or created a text prompt for a “dainty violin piece that sounds like being outdoors on a sunny day.” If the current quality of the tracks is any indication, AI generators produce likely won’t be replacing human artistry any time soon.

LimeWire says it wants to expand the offering from its basic function now to more in-depth creation throughout next year. Feistl say the company is already working on a text-to-voice feature and wants to create a more full-fledged digital audio workstation as well.

“The music generation bid in AI is super, super early. But I think in a matter of months, this is going to be the same as with the image generation space,” Feistl says. “In a matter of time this will be like knowing a tool like you know Ableton. The idea is really to enable anybody to create a full track. This will improve the level and the access to creativity a lot more for every type of user.”
https://rollingstoneindia.com/limewi...sic-this-time/
















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

December 9th, December 2nd, November 25th, November 18th

Jack Spratts' Week In Review is published every Friday. Submit letters, articles, press releases, comments, questions etc. in plain text English to jackspratts (at) lycos (dot) com. Submission deadlines are Thursdays @ 1400 UTC. Please include contact info. The right to publish all remarks is reserved.


"The First Amendment rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public." - Hugo Black