mathewingram.com/work

Today’s exercise in childish behaviour — which comes just days after the bitch-slap fest between eBay and Google — comes courtesy of a record industry executive with a skin so thin it’s a wonder his organs don’t fall out. BoingBoing has the story here, and a link to the website of one Andrew Dubber, who teaches at a British university and writes a blog about the music industry (his site was down for awhile but is now back up).

It seems Mr. Dubber linked to a Download Squad post that was critical of the RIAA’s lawsuit strategy, and a certain record executive named Paul Birch — who sits on the board of both the British record industry lobby and the international version of the same thing — sent an email saying that he didn’t think Mr. Dubber’s comments were appropriate, since his university gets government funding. At the end of the message, Birch said that “if you persist then I shall make a formal complaint to the University.” P2PNet has the text of the post.

Birch seems incensed that a university professor would post his opinion to a personal blog — imagine the nerve. As Mike Masnick notes at Techdirt, it’s this kind of ridiculous outburst that gives the entire industry an (even worse) name. Download Squad has a response to the situation here.

Scott McNealy of Sun said it many years ago, and we keep proving that it’s true in small ways (and sometimes big ones) every day. The latest is the news that a young woman’s Facebook and/or MySpace comments might become evidence in a court case (goes to state of mind, your Honor).

Why should this surprise anyone? If emails and personal letters and so on can become evidence, why not Facebook comments? Because Mark Zuckerberg promised you they were private? In Canada, just off the top of my head, we’ve already had at least two cases in which a person’s postings on the social network known as VampireFreaks.com became an issue. Once you type them into your browser, your words become part of the public record — or at least they could become part of it. If you don’t want to take that chance then don’t type them.

Couple of things I came across in the feed reader and elsewhere concerning bloggers — one sort of funny (but with a serious point) and one that looks great on first glance, but less great on second glance. First, the funny: PSFK, the marketing and fashion blog, points us towards a rant from celebrity chef Mario Batali at the blog Eater.com about foodie bloggers. The great man says that:

Many of the anonymous authors who vent on blogs rant their snarky vituperatives from behind the smoky curtain of the web. This allows them a peculiar and nasty vocabulary that seems to be taken as truth by virtue of the fact that it has been printed somewhere.

Batali goes on to mention some scurrilous rumours that were picked up by blogs (after being reported in the New York Post) and spread far and wide.

“This bit of shoddy journalism will be picked up and promulgated by the rest of the gray zone and march its merry way toward the center of the road. Eventually these blog posts become factual information lost in the sauce. But, in the end, I do not hate the blogger. I just expect, and want, more from many of them.”

Points to the chef for the use of the word “vituperatives” — nice work there. And he raises a fair point about blogs and the desire for gossip. But it seems as though Batali’s real issue is with the New York Post writer, not the bloggers. Tabloids have been dishing out questionable gossip since newspapers were first invented.

The second tidbit came from the sporting world, where the New York Islanders have set up a “blog box” for bloggers to cover their games (a slightly different approach from college baseball, which kicks bloggers out). Anyone can sit there provided they want to write about the game, and this seems like a great way to get fans involved in a game that seems to not have a very big audience in the U.S.

The only question in my mind is: Why a special box? Why not just put them in the press box? Presumably that would irritate the real journalists — although as Deadspin (which has an interview with the Islanders about the idea) noted in a post last year, bloggers should count themselves lucky they’re not in the press box, for a whole bunch of reasons.

So Business 2.0 magazine loses another writer/blogger, and Valleywag loses Nick Denton (again). Owen Thomas has jumped from his B2.0 blog duties to the editorship of the ‘Wag. Denton says he has been trying desperately to get rid of the editorship — although I suspect he has been having a pretty good time. As for Thomas, he could be forgiven for having a few butterflies about the move, given what happened to his predecessor, Nick “the other Nick” Douglas.

The other Nick was fired by Denton and then-editor in chief of Gawker Media, the wonderfully named Lockhart Steele (the other Nick was let go for, among other things, joking about lawsuits). Douglas, who looks barely old enough to drive, went on to launch his own blog project called Look Shiny (and just launched a live-blogging effort as part of Justin.tv). Given his track record, which extends back from Business 2.0 through Time mag and a bunch of other jobs, all the way (as Om mentions) to the venerable Suck.com in the late 1990s — a veritable treasure trove of smart writing and sardonic wit that I miss a lot — it sounds like Owen can probably handle the job.

I sure hope that Thomas can keep the Wag on the roll it’s been on since Denton took over again. I know that Mike Arrington believes Nick is the spawn of Satan — or at least one of his senior lieutenants — but I confess that I find much of what Valleywag writes a refreshing antidote to some of the breathless coverage that’s out there, and as my friend Paul Kedrosky points out, Nick has done a pretty good job of breaking news too.

From TVWeek comes this howler from former President Bill Clinton:

Speaking to a standing-room-only crowd of marketers, branders and media executives from around the country, former President Bill Clinton challenged the press to “render complex messages to audiences without turning them into two-dimensional cartoons” as the next election approaches.

Pot, meet kettle.

(cross-posted from my Globe and Mail blog)

CNN — the real-time news star of a previous generation — has teamed up with YouTube, the king of “user-generated” video, to inject a little reality into the U.S. presidential debates (which are usually choreographed within an inch of their lives so that no one accidentally says what they’re really thinking). The two media giants have set up a joint venture in which average citizens will be able to submit questions, and CNN will choose two questions that will be played for the candidates during the upcoming Democratic debate.

According to a press release from the two companies, “select YouTube users” will also be in the audience during the live debate, which is scheduled for July 23 and will be moderated by Anderson Cooper. The plan is to do something similar for the Republican candidate debate, but one hasn’t been scheduled yet. According to a conference call with a CNN executive and YouTube CEO Chad Hurley, blog postings and discussion in online forums may also influence the debate.

YouTube political editor Steve Grove and Anderson Cooper describe how the video portion of the Democratic debate is going to work in (what else) a YouTube video. The YouTube Debate site joins several other YouTube “channels” related to the election: several months ago, the video-sharing site (owned by Google) set up a site called CitizenTube — which is moderated by Grove — and the site also has a channel called You Choose, where the candidates can upload videos.

Most of the candidates have embraced video to some extent, and both John Edwards and Barack Obama announced their candidacy with videos. Hillary Clinton recently recorded a video about her search for a new campaign song, in which she poked fun at her critics by using YouTube clips. But candidates have also been burned by video clips — such as the video of George Allen calling someone a “macaca,” which pretty much ended his campaign — and the public reaction to videos such as the Hillary1984 video (or the video mentioned in this blog post) is unpredictable.

For political purposes, the Internet is “a chaotic message environment,” Alan Rosenblatt says in a post on TechPresident.com, “precisely because it enables anyone, as long as they have access to a wired computer, to post their own ideas and opinions.” Sometimes that can be good, and sometimes not so much.

I don’t post a lot on politics, but this video by someone calling herself “Obama Girl” is fantastic — well done, and hilarious. Apparently put together by Barely Political, there’s some talk about it at TechPresident.com, including an excellent post on the whole phenomenon of “voter-generated video” by Micah Sifry (hat tip to Rob Hyndman for the link).

As Rachel Sklar of Eat The Press points out, the singing in this particular comedic effort comes from Leah Kauffman, who was also involved in another (somewhat adult-themed) popular comedy video last year. Amy Lee Ettinger, an aspiring actress and swimsuit model, plays the role of the woman who is obsessed with Obama. The video has gotten a mention on the New York Times Caucus blog, at ABC News and at the Daily Kos blog.

Is this kind of thing good or bad for the candidate? That can be debated — and is being debated, as I mention in this blog post, including in the Chicago Tribune — but one thing is for sure: it’s pretty funny. Apparently Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart don’t have a monopoly on political humour any more 🙂

http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.js?mediaId:298339;affiliateId:0;height:392;width:480;

Google: “Hey girlfriend, I know you’re having a party on Wednesday, but I’m having a little bash thingy of my own that night — hope that doesn’t stress you out or anything. Love you — bye!”

eBay: “Excuse me, but WTF? You knew I was going to have that party for months, and so you planned yours the same night? How about you give me back that dress and nail-polish you borrowed then — hope that doesn’t stress you out or anything, beyotch.”

Google: “Hey, what’s with the attitude? You know we’re BFFs, right? I can totally call off the party. No biggie.”

(Apologies for the crudely rendered teenaged girl chat-speak — I’ve done a little freelance anthropological research involving the two I have at home, but I’m still unfamiliar with the species)

(cross-posted from my Globe and Mail blog)

Outside of the geek-o-sphere, the term widget is often used interchangeably with words like gizmo or gadget or doodad (or the somewhat less popular doohickey) or thingamajig. All of these terms are used to describe a device or thing that either doesn’t have a name — or at least not one that is easily remembered — or whose existence may actually be in question, as in “why don’t they invent a widget that…” etc.

As more and more people set up their “digital me” sites, whether they are blogs or MySpace pages or Facebook sites, widgets are becoming the machinery that allows media and content of all kinds to be easily distributed (see my column in Thursday’s Globe and Mail about Facebook’s F8 platform). Bands allow their music to be embedded — or widgetized — in webpages, and broadcast networks such as CBS are experimenting with allowing their video to be turned into widgets. Companies like Brightcove are trying to turn widgets into micro-economies, with ads and interactive features that try to turn widget browsers into buyers.

In an attempt to quantify the “widgetization” of the Web, traffic measurement firm comScore has launched a widget-tracking service. According to its analysis, photo-related widgets are at the top of the heap traffic-wise, with Slide being number one with more than 117 million unique users in April, or almost 14 per cent of the available Internet audience. RockYou, which recently launched a Facebook widget, came second with 82 million (the survey measured only widgets based on Flash and didn’t track desktop widgets).

Update:

Om Malik at GigaOm has a good post on the topic of widgets, and says comScore’s attempt to measure widgets has a number of flaws (comScore’s methodology being one of them) and the whole thing strikes him as a bit of a jellybean contest.

Each time I write about iLike — the music-sharing application that is by far the most popular app on the new Facebook platform F8 — the numbers boggle the mind (and my mind doesn’t boggle easily). The first time, it was the day that Facebook’s new widget-sharing feature went live, and iLike had gone from having just 1,200 users to having more than 400,000 in less than 24 hours, and was trying to scrounge up server space.

The next time I wrote about it the feature had more than two million users. Pretty amazing, right? Well, according to the company’s blog, it now has over six million users. That’s about 3,000 times more than it had a couple of weeks ago, and the application is adding about 300,000 users a day — a rate of growth that is unlike almost any new application I can think of. In a chart at the iLike blog, the company compares its growth to Skype, Hotmail and ICQ, and I think those are probably pretty good comparisons. The big question, of course, is whether all of the people who have added the app to their Facebook profile will become regular users of iLike, and actually bring the company any revenues as the result of its stardom.

In other Facebook-related news, the blogosphere’s newest star — Netscape founder Marc Andreesen — has a look at the F8 platform. He says that his opinion is the platform is “a dramatic leap forward for the Internet industry,” and notes that Silicon Valley shows that “in any fight between a platform and an application, the platform will always win.” In a nutshell, he says:

“Facebook is providing the ease and user attraction of MySpace-style embedding, coupled with the kind of integration you see with Firefox extensions, with the added rocket fuel of automated viral distribution to a huge number of potential users, and the prospect of keeping 100% of any revenue your application can generate.”

Marc goes on to do a fairly instensive, feature by feature analysis of the Facebook platform and the reasons for its success, and in passing mentions iLike as well — and how any app that hitches its wagon to the platform had better have the resources to scale quickly (anyone want to hazard a guess at what iLike is paying for servers right now?) I encourage you to read the whole post.

My reaction to the recent news that a newspaper blogger was ejected from a baseball game for live-blogging the event can be summed up in one word: moronic. Yes, I know that the league is well within its rights to throw the reporter out, since it is part of the agreement that newspapers (and other media) sign that they won’t do real-time game coverage. And my friend Mike Masnick at Techdirt may be right when he says it’s not a First Amendment issue. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s stupid, however. Is the league going to confiscate BlackBerrys and cellphones so that no one blogs from the stands now?

As Seamus McCauley says, baseball needs to enter the 21st century at some point, and now is as good a time as any. Dan Gillmor says that newspapers should hire fans to blog for them. There’s some discussion of the ban in the comments on the banned reporter’s blog, and former sports editor Joe Gisondi has a thoughtful post on the whole issue over on his blog. Eric Rice says people should live-blog every NCAA event in protest.

I guess I’m just an old softie at heart, but for some reason this post by Joey “Accordion Guy” deVilla really brought a smile to my face — and almost a tear to my eye as well (don’t tell anyone). It’s about how Joey’s significant other, the Ginger Ninja, was looking through craigslist and came across an ad from two women who were coming to Toronto to get married and were looking for witnesses. What the heck, Joey thinks — let’s go. So he and the missus troop down to City Hall with accordion in tow, meet the lovely young couple and act as witnesses, with Joey playing “Praise You” by Fatboy Slim on the squeezebox. Some great pics, and comments from the women who are now married — and even one from craigslist founder Craig Newmark. Very cool. Update: Joey’s story made a lot of people happy on Metafilter too.

I must admit that when I saw the news about Apple releasing a version of its Safari browser for Windows, I wondered why the hell anyone would care, unless they happened to be Apple devotees who wanted a familiar browser to use on a Windows box. After all, if you want an alternative to Microsoft’s Internet Exploder 7 (and who doesn’t), there’s always Firefox, and it does lots of things that Safari doesn’t, such as supporting plugins. And then after reading more about it, I realized — like Stan Schroeder and Scott Karp — that it is a kind of Trojan Horse, designed to enable developers to work on apps for the iPhone, etc. and thereby become a kind of platform for future Apple widgets and software. Smart.

For what it’s worth, I think Safari is cool and everything — although it has a kind of retro feel to me for some reason — but I will echo the comments of several people who say it looks kind of fuzzy. For my money, Microsoft’s ClearType makes a huge difference when it comes to readability of fonts — particularly at high resolutions — which is why I’m not a big fan of most Linux installs either.

But I have to say that Safari moves pretty fast when loading pages. And in my totally unscientific tests, it used substantially less memory than Firefox and somewhat less than Flock, but not as little as Explorer (which if I recall cheats a little when it comes to RAM usage). Still, I have to agree with Leander Kahney of Wired’s Cult of Mac blog — as a user, why would I bother with Safari?