The Web
Weinberger, CM (115): We do not know what the Web is for but we have adopted it faster than any technology since fire.
Updates from November, 2009 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
Gerrit Eicker
Murdoch vs. Google
Miller, CDO of News Corporation, said the media mogul was ready to block Google from his sites soon; http://j.mp/35rmKv
Gerrit Eicker
Silos and Pipes vs. Social Media
Searls: That most of the social action is in silos and pipes of giant companies slows things down; http://j.mp/KoA7L
Gerrit Eicker
OpenSim Content Management
Korolov, Hypergrid Business: OpenSim Content Management Wishlist; http://j.mp/1QeMkg
Gerrit Eicker
Digital Book Deal
The new terms of the digital book deal pave the way for other companies to licence from Google; http://j.mp/1a1tnz
Gerrit Eicker
Guerilla Marketing
Mugnai: The 80 best guerrilla marketing ideas I have ever seen; http://j.mp/3ly18s (via @TheJunctionMag)
Gerrit Eicker
Jarvis and German Media
Jarvis: My advice to German media: Rather than fighting Google, learn lessons from it; http://j.mp/3GxykY
Gerrit Eicker
TweetLevel
Edelman offers TweetLevel to measure importance of Twitteratis, using a meaningful methodology; http://j.mp/4v8nQA
Gerrit Eicker
How Google Works
Sullivan: Would someone please explain to News Corporation how Google works? http://j.mp/cjfbc
Gerrit Eicker
Wave Following
Google Wave Following: Public waves now need to be followed explicitly to stay in an inbox; http://j.mp/Q0gN9
SEL: “As expected, a revised Google Book Settlement has been filed today – about as late as possible. The agreement narrows the scope to the US, UK, Canada and Australia. It alters how revenue generated by ‘unclaimed works’ will be handled. It formally grants retailers who license out-of-print books covered by the settlement – including Google competitors – a 37% share of sales. It also clarifies how the book pricing algorithm will work.”
NYT: “The changes also restrict the Google catalog to books published in the United States, Britain, Australia or Canada. That move is intended to resolve objections from the French and German governments, which complained that the settlement did not abide by copyright law in those countries. – The revised settlement could make it easier for other companies to compete with Google in offering their own digitized versions of older library books because it drops a provision that was widely interpreted as ensuring that no other company could get a better deal with authors and publishers than the one Google had struck.”
Google: “The changes we’ve made in our amended agreement address many of the concerns we’ve heard (particularly in limiting its international scope), while at the same time preserving the core benefits of the original agreement: opening access to millions of books while providing rightsholders with ways to sell and control their work online. … We’re disappointed that we won’t be able to provide access to as many books from as many countries through the settlement as a result of our modifications, but we look forward to continuing to work with rightsholders from around the world to fulfill our longstanding mission of increasing access to all the world’s books.”
Brantley, Open Book Alliance: “Our initial review of the new proposal tells us that Google and its partners are performing a sleight of hand; fundamentally, this settlement remains a set-piece designed to serve the private commercial interests of Google and its partners. None of the proposed changes appear to address the fundamental flaws illuminated by the Department of Justice and other critics that impact public interest. By performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the AAP, and the AG are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution; usurp Congress’s role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process.”