Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - October 28th, ’23

[JackSpratts]

Since 2002































October 28th, 2023




Brazilian Authorities Shut Down Major Illegal File Sharing Site
Ashley King

IFPI reports Brazilian authorities have shut down FileWarez.tv, a prominent illegal file sharing hub in Brazil, following the coordinated action of record company bodies and local authorities.

IFPI, the organization representing the recorded music industry worldwide, alongside its Brazilian national group, Pro-Música, has announced the successful shuttering of prominent illegal file sharing website, FileWarez. The takedown is the coordinated effort of record company bodies and local authorities, including the Brazilian special cybercrime unit of the prosecutor’s office of São Paulo, Cyber Gaeco.

FileWarez was the most established illegal file sharing forum in Brazil, dedicated to the unauthorized sharing of music content. The site had over 118,000 registered users, with at least 24,000 monthly active users. The website was shut down following the coordinated work of IFPI, Brazilian anti-piracy body APDIF, and Cyber Gaeco.

“We congratulate Cyber Gaeco on their action,” says Melissa Morgia, Director of Global Content Protection and Enforcement, IFPI. “The site operated with no regard for the rights of music creators, and has undermined the legal marketplace in Brazil. This is an important action in the continuing fight against piracy in the country.”
“We are very grateful to the Cyber Gaeco unit of the Prosecutor’s office of São Paulo for its continuous and successful work against music piracy,” adds Paulo Rosa, President of Pro-Música Brasil.

The recent takedown is the latest in IFPI’s concerted effort alongside Brazilian law enforcement to crack down on infringing services online. Last year, IFPI reported substantial efforts made under Operation 404, relating to actions against unlicensed music services, including over 400 infringing apps. Operation 404 is a joint initiative in cooperation with the Brazilian Ministry of Justice and Public Security, Homeland Security Investigations in the US, the Police IP Crime Unit of the City of London Police, and cybercrime units from several Brazilian states.

As the voice of the recording industry worldwide, IFPI represents over 8,000 record company members across the globe. IFPI works to promote the value of recorded music, campaign for the rights of record producers, and expand the commercial uses of recorded music around the world.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/202...-sharing-site/





Bloomsbury Chief Warns of AI Threat to Publishing

Group that launched Harry Potter series says copyright not sufficiently being protected
Sarah J Maas

The chief executive of Bloomsbury Publishing has warned of the threat of artificial intelligence to the publishing industry, saying tech groups are already using the work of authors to train up generative AI programmes.

Nigel Newton, who signed Harry Potter author JK Rowling to Bloomsbury in the 1990s, also said ministers needed to act urgently to address competition concerns between large US tech groups and the publishing industry given their increasing market dominance in selling books across the world.

The warning came as Bloomsbury reported its highest-ever first-half results on the back of the boom in fantasy novels, leading the publisher to boost its interim dividend.

The group said revenues grew 11 per cent to £136.7mn, sending profits 11 per cent higher at £17.7mn, for the six months to August 31.

Newton pointed to the “huge” growth in fantasy novels, with sales of books by Sarah J Maas and Samantha Shannon growing 79 per cent and 169 per cent respectively in the period and demand for Harry Potter books, 26 years after publication, remaining strong.

The next Maas book, scheduled for January, has already received “staggering” pre-orders of 750,000 copies for the hardback edition, he said, underscoring the resurgence of the book-selling industry. The group’s consumer division will also publish new books in the expanding Harry Potter franchise — such as a new Wizarding Almanac this autumn.

Newton also said Bloomsbury’s academic publishing arm remained strong, with the growth of digital revenues through subscription or sales of access to digital resources.

Newton, who founded Bloomsbury in 1986, said the strategy put in place more than 10 years ago to diversify into academic publishing has helped bolster strong results from its consumer business.

However, in an interview with the Financial Times, Newton raised concerns about the rise of generative AI that uses books to “learn” without permission of the author or publisher.

He said copyright was not sufficiently being protected from AI. “The most important issue right now in our industry is to prevent books being trained upon by generative AI because they, in effect, steal the author’s copyrighted work,” he said. “It’s critically important that publishers and authors protect their work from being scanned without permission.”

However, he said AI could also be used as a tool by authors to help productivity, pointing out that book publishers have already released work written by AI.

Newton said there were still challenges to the publishing industry, including the imbalance of power with tech groups that sell books, both physically online and via ebooks.

He urged UK ministers to commit to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which is still being considered in parliament, and warned against watering down any provisions in the face of lobbying by tech groups.

The bill will set out new rules for competition in digital markets and allow regulators to set conduct requirements for big groups to address market power.

The publishing industry has long complained about the power that ecommerce groups such as Amazon have over the industry in being able to demand larger discounts and better terms given the dominance of sales of online books. These price cuts also mean less money for authors as well as publishers.

Newton said a “level playing field between the big tech platforms and their suppliers is badly needed”.

“Politicians are very sympathetic because they see people being steamrollered at the same time as recognising the huge amounts of good that tech does. This is just a trimming of the sails.”

The UK was already behind other jurisdictions given similar legislation enacted in the EU, he added.
https://www.ft.com/content/66c76cbb-...f-4ab90f020c78





Three Baltic Pipe and Cable Incidents "are Related", Estonia Says
Andrius Sytas and Nerijus Adomaitis

The three incidents which resulted in damage to a gas pipeline and two telecom cables between Estonia, Finland and Sweden "are related", Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said in a statement.

Finnish police have named the Chinese-owned and Hong-Kong-flagged container carrier NewNew Polar Bear as the prime suspect in damaging the Balticconnector Finland-Estonia gas pipeline early on Oct. 8.

A large anchor was found near the pipeline, and the investigators believe the pipe was broken as a ship dragged it along the sea bed.

Two telecom cables were also damaged that night, connecting Estonia to Finland and Sweden. Helsinki is investigating the pipeline incident, while Tallinn is looking into the cables incidents.

Estonia's investigation into the Estonia-Finland cable damage was also focused on the Chinese vessel, and on Thursday evening Estonian Prime Minister stated all three incidents are likely connected.

"We have reason to believe that the cases of Balticconnector and communication cables are related," she said in a governmental statement.

"We continue to find out the circumstances in close cooperation with Finland and Sweden and other allies and partners", she added. "Currently, no version can be confirmed or denied regarding Estonian communication cables."

Reuters reported that two vessels, NewNew Polar Bear and Russia-flagged Sevmorput, were present at all three sites around the time of the damage, according to data from MarineTraffic, a ship-tracking and maritime analytics provider.

NewNew Polar Bear sailed over the Estonia-Sweden cable 133 kilometres before reaching the pipeline damage site.

It then crossed the Estonia-Finland cable 32 kilometres after the gas pipeline, according to MarineTraffic.

NATO has stepped up patrols in the Baltic sea after the incidents, and Norwegian navy has shadowed NewNew Polar Bear as it sailed over country's key pipelines.

China is willing to provide necessary information in accordance with international law regarding an investigation on damage to a Baltic Sea gas pipeline, the foreign ministry said on Wednesday at a regular press briefing.

Reporting by Andrius Sytas in Vilnius and Nerijus Adomaitis in Oslo; editing by David Evans
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ys-2023-10-27/





Tired Of Being Ripped Off By Monopolies, Cleveland Launches Ambitious Plan To Provide Citywide Dirt Cheap Broadband
Karl Bode

Cleveland has spent years being dubbed the “worst connected city in the U.S.” thanks to expensive, patchy, and slow broadband. Why Cleveland broadband sucks so badly isn’t really a mystery: consolidated monopoly/duopoly power has resulted in a broken market where local giants like AT&T and Charter don’t have to compete on price, speeds, availability, customer service, or much of anything else.

Data also shows that despite billions in tax breaks, regulatory favors, and subsidies, companies like AT&T have long refused to upgrade low-income and minority Cleveland neighborhoods to fiber. These companies not only engage in this deployment “redlining,” but data also makes it clear they often charge these low income and minority neighborhoods more money for the same or slower broadband.

Last week I spent some time talking to Cleveland city leaders and local activists about their plan to do something about it. On one hand, they’ve doled out $20 million in COVID relief broadband funding to local non-profit DigitalC to deliver fixed wireless broadband at speeds of 100 Mbps for as little as $18.

On the other hand, they’ve convinced a company named SiFi Networks to build a $500 million open access fiber network at no cost to taxpayers. SiFi Networks will benefit from a tight relationship with the city, while making its money from leasing access to the network to ISPs.

We’ve noted (see our Copia report on broadband competition) that such open access networks routinely lower the cost for ISP market entry, boost competition, and generally result in lower prices. Monopolies like AT&T, of course, have long opposed the idea, even if they would technically benefit from lower access costs, because it chips away at their consolidated monopoly power.

Local activists like DigitalC CEO Joshua Edmonds tell me they hope the project teaches U.S. towns and cities that there are alternatives to being feckless supplicants to regional telecom mono/duopolies:

“This is a major victory, and I hope that people don’t look at it as just a major victory for Cleveland. Every city where there’s a prevalent digital divide, where there’s political will and ability to execute, people should be paying close attention to what happens in Cleveland, paying close attention to how DigitalC was able to fight and navigate with our coalition of stakeholders.”

We’ll see what the finished network looks like. And now that Cleveland is challenging monopoly power, it will be interesting to see if local monopolies focus on challenging Cleveland. Big ISPs like AT&T and Charter want to have their cake and eat it too; they don’t want to uniformly upgrade their broadband networks to next-gen speeds, but they genuinely don’t want others to do so either.

It’s a lot easier and cheaper to throw a bunch of campaign contributions at corrupt policymakers (remember with the GOP wanted to ban all community broadband networks country-wide during the peak of the pandemic? or how the telecom and GOP worked in concert to pass laws in 20 states effectively banning towns and cities from making these choices for themselves?).

Community-owned broadband networks aren’t a magical panacea. Such efforts are like any other business plan, and require competency in design and implementation. But the community-owned and operated networks in more than 1,000 U.S. cities can (and routinely do) prompt a very broken and federal government-coddled status quo to actually try for once, much to its chagrin.
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/23/...eap-broadband/





Google Fiber is Getting Outrageously Fast 20Gbps Service

For now this is early access, but "most" customers will get upgraded eventually.
Ron Amadeo

Google Fiber is still operating in a handful of cities, and now the bandwidth-rich are getting richer: Fiber plans to upgrade some users to outrageously fast 20Gbps service by the end of the year. Google's Wednesday blog post calls this part of a "GFiber Labs" experiment and says the service "will initially be available as an early access offering to a small group of GFiber customers in select areas."

The 20Gbps service is made possible by new networking gear: Nokia's 25G PON (passive optical network) technology, which lets Internet service providers push more bandwidth over existing fiber lines. Google says it's "one of the first" ISPs to adopt the technology for consumers, though at least one other US ISP, the Tennessee provider "EPB," has rolled out the technology. Customers will need new networking gear, too, and Google says you'll get a new fiber modem with built-in Wi-Fi 7.

Fierce Telecom spoke with Google's Nick Saporito, head of product at Google Fiber, who said, “We definitely see a need" for 20Gbps service. For now, Saporito says the service is "a very early adopter product," but it will eventually roll out "in most, if not all, of our markets."

According to that Fierce report, Fiber is built on Nokia's "Quillion" Fiber platform, which is upgradable, so Google only needed to "plug in a new optical module and replace the optical network terminal on the end-user side" to take its 5 and 8Gbps infrastructure to 20Gbps.

As always with Google Fiber, this is a symmetrical connection with 20Gbps down and up, so you can create content, like posting a YouTube video, in a flash. That's an incredible speed compared to most other ISPs. I live in a bandwidth desert ruled by the local broadband monopoly, Comcast, and this is 1,000 times more upload speed than the nearly 20Mbps upload Comcast will sell me.

There's no word yet on the price or which utopian Google Fiber cities will get access to the 20Gbps service, but Google has already run trials in Kansas City, Missouri. Currently, Google Fiber costs $70 for 1Gbps and $150 for 8Gbps. Interested customers can sign up for early access at this link.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023...0gbps-service/





Privacy Advocate Challenges YouTube's Ad Blocking Detection Scripts Under EU Law
Thomas Claburn

Interview Last week, privacy advocate (and very occasional Reg columnist) Alexander Hanff filed a complaint with the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) decrying YouTube's deployment of JavaScript code to detect the use of ad blocking extensions by website visitors.

On October 16, according to the Internet Archives' Wayback Machine, Google published a support page declaring that "When you block YouTube ads, you violate YouTube's Terms of Service."

"If you use ad blockers," it continues, "we'll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium. If you continue to use ad blockers, we may block your video playback."

YouTube's Terms of Service do not explicitly disallow ad blocking extensions, which remain legal in the US [PDF], in Germany, and elsewhere. But the language says users may not "circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service" – which probably includes the ads.

YouTube's open hostility to ad blockers coincides with the recent trial deployment of a popup notice presented to web users who visit the site with an ad-blocking extension in their browser – messaging tested on a limited audience at least as far back as May.

In order to present that popup YouTube needs to run a script, changed at least twice a day, to detect blocking efforts. And that script, Hanff believes, violates the EU's ePrivacy Directive – because YouTube did not first ask for explicit consent to conduct such browser interrogation.

Fitting a pattern?

Such non-consensual technical interaction has been a concern of Hanff's for at least the past seven years.

"In early 2016 I wrote to the European Commission requesting a formal legal clarification over the application of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC) and whether or not consent would be required for all access to or storage of information on an end user's device which was not strictly necessary," Hanff told The Register.

"Specifically whether the deployment of scripts or other technologies to detect an ad blocker would require consent (as it is not strictly necessary for the provision of the requested service and is purely for the interests of the publisher). The European Commission sent me a formal written response agreeing with my position that such activities would require consent."

At the time, he added, he visited the Irish DPC in Dublin and EU data authorities in other countries to discuss The European Commission's response. Now that YouTube has deployed ad blocking detection, Hanff has asked the Irish DPC to take action.

"In a call I had with the Irish DPC at the end of last week (after filing my complaint against YouTube), they did not disagree with my analysis and agreed to reach out to YouTube (Alphabet)," Hanff said. "I have since received another update that they have reached out to YouTube on Monday and will update me at the end of the week with any further information."

A spokesperson for the Irish DPC told The Register that Hanff's complaint had been received, but declined to comment further while it is being evaluated.

Asked how he hopes the Irish DPC will respond, Hanff replied via email, "I would expect the DPC to investigate and issue an enforcement notice to YouTube requiring them to cease and desist these activities without first obtaining consent (as per [Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)] standard) for the deployment of their spyware detection scripts; and further to order YouTube to unban any accounts which have been banned as a result of these detections and to delete any personal data processed unlawfully (see Article 5(1) of GDPR) since they first started to deploy their spyware detection scripts."

Hanff's use of strikethrough formatting to acknowledges the legal difficulty of using the term "spyware" to refer to YouTube's ad block detection code. The security industry's standard defamation defense terminology for such stuff is PUPs, or potentially unwanted programs.

Hanff, who reports having a Masters in Law focused on data and privacy protection, added that the ePrivacy Directive is lex specialis to GPDR. That means where laws overlap, the specific one takes precedence over the more general one. Thus, he argues, personal data collected without consent is unlawful under Article 5(1) of GDPR and cannot be lawfully processed for any purpose.

With regard to YouTube's assertion that using an ad blocker violates the site's Terms of Service, Hanff argued, "Any terms and conditions which restrict the legal rights and freedoms of an EU citizen (and the point of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive is specifically to protect the fundamental right to Privacy under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) are void under EU law."

Therefore, in essence, "Any such terms which restrict the rights of EU persons to limit access to their terminal equipment would, as a result, be void and unenforceable," he added.

Not just cookies it seems

Hanff's contention that ad-blocker detection without consent is unlawful in the EU was challenged back in 2016 by the maker of a detection tool called BlockAdblock. The software maker's argument is that JavaScript code is not stored in the way considered in Article 5(3), which the firm suggests was intended for cookies.

Hanff disagrees, and maintains that "The Commission and the legislators have been very clear that any access to a user's terminal equipment which is not strictly necessary for the provision of a requested service, requires consent.

"This is also bound by CJEU Case C-673/17 (Planet49) from October 2019 which *all* Member States are legally obligated to comply with, under the [Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union] – there is no room for deviation on this issue," he elaborated.

"If a script or other digital technology is strictly necessary (technically required to deliver the requested service) then it is exempt from the consent requirements and as such would pose no issue to publishers engaging in legitimate activities which respect fundamental rights under the Charter.

"It is long past time that companies meet their legal obligations for their online services," insisted Hanff. "This has been law since 2002 and was further clarified in 2009, 2012, and again in 2019 – enough is enough."

Google did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/...enges_youtube/





The UK’s Controversial Online Safety Bill Finally Becomes Law

The bill, which aims to make the UK ‘the safest place in the world to be online,’ received royal assent today. But its contents have been contentious, especially because of their potential impact on encrypted messaging.
Jon Porter

The UK’s Online Safety Bill, a wide-ranging piece of legislation that aims to make the country “the safest place in the world to be online” received royal assent today and became law. The bill has been years in the making and attempts to introduce new obligations for how tech firms should design, operate, and moderate their platforms. Specific harms the bill aims to address include underage access to online pornography, “anonymous trolls,” scam ads, the nonconsensual sharing of intimate deepfakes, and the spread of child sexual abuse material and terrorism-related content.

Although it’s now law, online platforms will not need to immediately comply with all of their duties under the bill, which is now known as the Online Safety Act. UK telecoms regulator Ofcom, which is in charge of enforcing the rules, plans to publish its codes of practice in three phases. The first covers how platforms will have to respond to illegal content like terrorism and child sexual abuse material, and a consultation with proposals on how to handle these duties is due to be published on November 9th.

Meanwhile, phases two and three cover platforms’ obligations around child safety and preventing underage access to pornography as well as producing transparency reports, preventing scam ads, and offering “empowerment tools” to give users more control over the content they’re shown. An initial consultation covering pornography sites is due in December, while additional consultations on other duties relating to child safety will follow next spring. Ofcom says it expects to publish a list of “categorised services,” which are large or high-risk platforms that will be subject to obligations like producing transparency reports, by the end of next year.

Failing to comply with the act’s rules could land companies with fines of up to £18 million (around $22 million), or 10 percent of their global annual turnover (whichever is higher), and their bosses could even face prison.

“The Online Safety Act’s strongest protections are for children. Social media companies will be held to account for the appalling scale of child sexual abuse occurring on their platforms and our children will be safer,” said UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman. “We are determined to combat the evil of child sexual exploitation wherever it is found, and this Act is a big step forward.”

The Online Safety Bill has been a controversial piece of legislation, with opponents ranging from encrypted messaging apps to the Wikimedia Foundation. Messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal have objected to a clause in the bill that allows Ofcom to ask tech companies to identify child sexual abuse content “whether communicated publicly or privately,” which the companies say fatally undermines their ability to provide end-to-end encryption. Providers of these services have suggested they’d rather leave the UK than comply with these rules.

Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Foundation has said that the bill’s strict obligations for protecting children from inappropriate content could create issues for a service like Wikipedia, which chooses to collect minimal data on its users, including their ages.

In a statement, Ofcom’s chief executive Melanie Dawes pushed back against the idea that the act will make the telecoms regulator a censor. “Our new powers are not about taking content down,” Dawes said. “Our job is to tackle the root causes of harm. We will set new standards online, making sure sites and apps are safer by design. Importantly, we’ll also take full account of people’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression.”

The act has been welcomed by child safety advocates. “Having an Online Safety Act on the statute book is a watershed moment and will mean that children up and down the UK are fundamentally safer in their everyday lives,” the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children chief executive, Peter Wanless, said in a statement. “Tech companies will be legally compelled to protect children from sexual abuse and avoidable harm.”
https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/...ion-regulation





Hollywood Needs to Create Its Biggest Hit Ever. Here’s How the Industry Can Make That Happen (Guest Column)
Jason Kilar

Hollywood is hurting. The financial backbone of the industry — linear television — is rapidly shrinking as consumers continue to cut the cord at alarming rates. At the same time, YouTube, TikTok and other innovative digital services continue to earn more consumer attention each day with their seductive offerings. Most acutely, production remains halted due to the now 105-day impasse between SAG-AFTRA and the studios. There is a way forward, but it starts by looking back to when all corners of the industry contributed to Hollywood’s greatest hit.

First, some additional context: it is no longer controversial to state that the future of entertainment will largely be streamed. As linear television declines at a rate of close to 10% per year in the U.S., consumers are already choosing streaming more than either broadcast or cable television. In the most recent network linear television season, the median age for most entertainment shows was over 60.

Despite the rise in digital consumption, only one company from across the industry — Netflix — is generating material cash flow from streaming. This should not be an indictment of streaming’s ability to deliver strong cash flow. Contrary to what many have stated, streaming is neither a bad business nor is it a broken business model. While streaming is not broken, a number of entertainment and sports companies’ streaming strategies may be.

The distinction is important. Netflix is in command of a sound streaming strategy, which has been to invest and execute consistently such that it can substantively replace the linear pay TV bundle. Netflix has attracted just about 250 million paying households as of this writing and is going to generate over $6 billion in cash flow as a result of the company’s streaming strategy. These results are remarkable for such a relatively young company that has only one business. By the end of this decade, Netflix has a credible chance, given the high growth rate in its cash flow, to generate more cash flow annually than any entertainment company in the industry’s 100-year history. Just from streaming.

The big question confronting and confounding the industry is how can companies not named Netflix generate attractive cash flow from streaming? I believe it comes down to one of two paths.

The first path entails earning Netflix-esque high daily usage from a large customer base of at least 200 million households. Such that those customers happily pay a sufficient price every month for your service and do not churn. This path requires offering enough compelling series, movies and other programming such that members of the household consume hours each day, every day of the year. There are no shortcuts. This path is not in the cards for the vast majority of companies, as it requires creative scale and an unusually large amount of disciplined investment over a long period of time. It also requires a balance sheet that makes it possible to do so. In success, the cash flows from this first path are extremely attractive (see: Netflix).

The second path entails a company playing a contributing role in someone else’s scaled, heavily used streaming service. But contributing in this context does not mean licensing or selling individual series or movies to a streaming service. This path entails a company contributing a branded, continuously updated programming lineup and in return receiving a share of the ongoing revenues from a scaled streaming service. It means being a new kind of channel that’s part of one big streaming service (ironically, this is the way that Hulu and its Hollywood partners operated for many years). In success, this second path is financially attractive.

Either of the above options can generate attractive cash flow. What will not generate attractive cash flow? A streaming strategy or service that is not on a credible path to earning high daily usage from over 200 million customers that each pay a sufficient price each month. Unfortunately, most companies in the industry currently fall into this latter camp.

Having a diverse set of companies earning or tapping into streaming scale is fundamental to the industry being financially compelling into the future (as opposed to just one company being financially compelling). To this point, the lessons from Hollywood’s history weigh greatly and it is worthwhile to look back.

Beginning in the 1980s, Hollywood thrived financially for more than three decades in large part (not entirely, but in large part) because of its ability to (1) create great entertainment and (2) collectively aggregate entertainment in an offering that consumers devoured.

Creating great entertainment meant the artistry and alchemy that resulted in beloved movies, series, documentaries, and other programming. Aggregating entertainment in an offering that consumers devoured meant carefully curated television channels and, as importantly, the bundling of those television channels. But why did television channels — and the bundling of television channels — generate such attractive financial returns for Hollywood?

First, people really liked getting access to — directionally speaking — all television series, movies, news and live sporting events for one price in one seamless interface. In this way, the linear pay TV bundle was an everything product and 90% of all homes in the U.S. chose to purchase it. Think about that: nine out of every 10 customers who could have purchased the product ended up doing so. While not every series or movie ever made was available in the bundle, almost every new series was, along with news programs, plenty of popular older series and almost every major live sporting event. Purchasing the linear pay TV bundle was a no-brainer for households seeking entertainment.

Not only did people want to buy Hollywood’s everything product but they also used it … a lot. Households that subscribed to the linear pay TV bundle consumed over eight hours each day. Very few people churned out of the service. Financially, it allowed Hollywood as an industry — not just one or two companies but the industry — to earn unprecedented profits.

A second reason Hollywood’s everything product generated so much cash flow for the industry was because the design of the product caused consumers to expect, well, everything (in this case, all the TV channels). That meant that Hollywood companies were able to retain more of the economics from the everything product when compared to distributors (who had no real choice but to offer all of the channels that people expected).

A third reason Hollywood’s everything product generated so much cash flow was because the entire industry contributed to it, which meant that no single company had to shoulder the high level of investment needed to entertain an entire household (much less a country of households) for many hours each day of the year. Far less was invested in programming a linear television channel over the course of a year compared to the annual content budget of a typical streamer. Perhaps the most extreme example is when the AMC channel earned its reputation — and its cash flows — largely on the back of just two breakout series (“Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad”). Hollywood’s everything product enabled small companies (e.g., AMC Networks), medium-sized companies (CBS) and large companies (Disney with ABC, ESPN and Disney Channel) to each play a role and for each to generate attractive cash flows as a result.

Hollywood’s history lessons are thus threefold: (1) large number of customers really liked Hollywood’s everything product; (2) because it was everything product, over time more and more of the dollars flowed to those contributing to it (the studios, the sports leagues and the talent); and (3) the everything product allowed for large and small companies alike to earn attractive profits for decades.

What does this mean for today’s Hollywood? Particularly for those companies that are currently investing heavily in streaming but are not on a credible path to getting to the streaming scale needed to generate attractive cash flows? Many if not all of those companies should be architecting a modern everything product that consumers will adore.

Designing a digital everything product that will benefit Hollywood for decades is not easy. It is hard to earn the daily habits and wallets of over 200 million customers, all while maintaining control over one’s destiny. What does an everything product look like in today’s digital world? It starts with a singular, delightful, intuitive user experience offered for one attractive price. It is not a hard bundle (e.g., when a cellular service provides its customers access to a streamer) and it is not a synthetic bundle (e.g., when access to two distinct streaming apps are sold for one price). The product design entails thoughtful solutions for curation, promotion, advertising sales, data transparency and financial participation. Crucially, the vast majority of players in the industry need to come together in order for the product to be a no-brainer of a purchase decision for 9 out of 10 consumers. While pulling this off will be challenging, it is increasingly hard to see anything — outside of resolving the SAG-AFTRA strike — being more important or more urgent for almost every entertainment and sports company in the world.

Though I have zero involvement or financial participation in the company anymore, I think Hulu could be a good (but not the only) choice to birth Hollywood’s digital everything product. Given its history of being owned and controlled by major entertainment companies, Hulu presents a rare situation where Hollywood companies could in theory quickly and productively align on a product and economic vision that could delight customers and work well for themselves … and get to market swiftly. In this scenario, once the digital everything product proves to be a hit with consumers, other distributors would be able to offer the same product to their customers, so long as they contributed their content into it under the same terms as others.

It should be stated that there are some fair arguments at this point to not contribute to an everything product. One is that you are Netflix. Another argument to go it alone entails conviction that a corporate transaction is soon to occur, such that a newly-formed, larger company will get on a credible path to earn streaming scale. A final argument is if there are material changes expected in the balance sheet and operating decisions of one of the few Hollywood companies that potentially has the goods to get to streaming scale on their own. After all, the long-term outcomes in streaming have yet to be determined, given that Netflix’s current share of television viewing time is less than 10%.

With all of this said, there is no getting around the reality that, in the face of the clear decline of linear television and the dramatic rise of TikTok, YouTube and other digital services, Hollywood is in need of its biggest hit yet. For most entertainment and sports companies, that means coming together to deliver a product so good that nine out of 10 people choose to purchase it and happily devour it daily.
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/jas...ia-1235768834/





Hackers are Trying to Catch You Pirating a Barbenheimer Double Feature

A new report from McAfee Labs reveals celebrity names that are most often exploited by scammers—and ‘Barbie’ star Ryan Gosling tops this year’s list.
Grace Snelling

It might be wise to think twice before you try to watch a Barbenheimer double feature on a less-than-trustworthy website.

That’s based on a new report from McAfee Labs, which tracked celebrities whose names most often lead unsuspecting internet searchers to online scams. These tricks tend to encourage users to click on fake links that then install malware on their devices. McAfee’s 2023 “Hacker Celebrity Hot List” slots Barbie’s Ryan Gosling in first place and Oppenheimer star Emily Blunt in second.

Hackers seem to have identified Barbie as one of the most popular candidates for these kinds of scams, considering that Gosling’s costars Margot Robbie and America Ferrera also rank among the Top 10. In fact, a separate McAfee report published in July found that Barbie-related malware was on the rise, including scams that lured fans in with fake videos and download links.

According to Steve Grobman, McAfee’s chief technology officer, the trend reflects a larger issue with today’s consumption of celebrity news.

“People are putting speed and convenience over their own online protection by clicking on pop-ups and other suspicious links that promise celebrity-filled content,” Grobman said in the Celebrity Hot List release. “We also know people are seeking out free content, such as movie downloads, which puts them at risk. If it sounds too good to be true, it deserves a closer look.”

Cybercriminals capitalize most on the stars of the moment who have managed to capture public fascination—meaning that McAfee’s report, which has been published for the past 15 years, is always in flux. Other celebrities on the 2023 list include Jennifer Lopez, Elon Musk, Kevin Costner, and Bad Bunny. This year’s research also had to account for a cybersecurity landscape that has been majorly impacted by AI. As deepfake tech becomes more convincing, the lab warns that a rise in misinformation and scams is imminent.

The report also comes as a new wave of Gen Z hackers are capitalizing on rapidly improving tech capabilities. A group known as Scattered Spider, believed to be composed of 17-to-22-year-olds, has been staging cyberattacks on companies including Clorox, MGM Resorts, and Caesars Entertainment for the past several months.

While these kinds of breaches on large organizations can be tougher to prevent, there are plenty of steps that the average internet user can take to protect their data. McAfee lists four key principles to remember: Be careful what you click; refrain from illegal streaming and downloading suspicious MP3s; only download videos from well-known, legitimate sites; and don’t “log in” or provide other information.

For Barbie fans, that means streaming on Amazon Prime, Google Play, Apple TV, Vudu, or a similar platform. And it’ll be another month before a legitimate Barbenheimer double feature is possible from your couch—Oppenheimer’s (non-pirated) digital release is set for November 21.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90973687...-gosling-scams
















Until next week,

- js.



















Current Week In Review





Recent WiRs -

October 21st, October 14th, October 7th, September 30th

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