When I posted before about the associated press and their idiotic view of the Internet I was quoting from where they say you cannot even use one paragraph of text or a small version of one of their pictures. They claim that even if you attribute the source, it’s a violation of their copyright.

They are still wrong on that point. It’s failr use and I stand by my statement.

But on their lawsuit against moreover.com, they may have a valid point. Moreover charges you for content much like the AP charges news organizations for their content.

Moreover places ads on that content. So moreover.com is basically reselling content the AP owns because they reprint the content in it’s entirety.

I think the Ap will win that lawsuit, but if they try to go after bloggers who are complying with fair use laws, I think they will be the big losers there.

Nielson for years has been able to make or break shows on tv based on which ones they say people are watching. The truth is they use a relatively small sampling of viewers to determine what everyone else would like or dislike.

Random sampling is pretty useless. I don’t believe their small sample audience represents the majority of viewers. Now they want you to trust what they say is or is not a popular website?

At least online, traffic can be measured. It can be measured against sales to get conversion rate. We know where the traffic is coming from. We know which browser people used to view our websites.

But, then . . . why do I need Nielson to tell me that again?

Things That Just Piss Me Off
Who Let The Blog Out?

Now what does the British Parliament stand to gain from banning gambling advertising?

(Source)
The British Parliament is reviewing a proposal by the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) James Purnell to ban gambling enterprises based outside the European Economic Area from advertising in the UK.

This is interesting because gambling is legal in the UK. It’s also tax free. But gambling books that have their headquarters outside of the UK encourage gambling and the winners who play, if they win, provide no benefit to the British government. I don’t know if they have to pay taxes on revenue from UK business, but it is likely they do not. So the UK has no incentive to keep the business coming in. Plus, in this day and age of fear of terrorism, we can’t take a chance that the British government may inadvertently support terrorism by allowing the advertising within its borders.

I wonder how much the U.S. is responsible for this policy.

News and Media Blog
Gambling Tips Blog

(Source) The rapid growth of online advertising is expected to see the sector overtake US newspaper advertising in terms of size by 2011.

The forecast comes against a backdrop of declining advertising sales reported by newspaper groups this year in spite of continued strength in the US economy.

All media survives because of advertising. Sponsors pay for newspapers, television spots, radio advertising, magazine ads, and even Internet media. Many blogs are financed by advertisers. Even some websites make their pay through sponsored links, banner and display ads, or in some cases through pay-per-click ads. But lately the Internet has been gaining in total ad spending on traditional media, particularly print advertising. Does that mean print advertising is dead?

Not likely. There will always be people who prefer print media over the Internet. The radio didn’t die when television came along. Free TV didn’t go by the wayside when cable gave us better movies. DVDs didn’t kill VCRs and the home video didn’t destroy the movie theater. In fact, some of the biggest grossing box office smashes in history came after the advent of the VCR and DVD. So I’m betting that the Internet won’t kill print media either.

Media Advertising Realities: Are They Related?

But there is no denying reality. Print media advertising is in decline. Internet media advertising is on the rise. Are the two related?

One might be fooled into thinking that they are. I’m not convinced. All new media see an early spike, a plateau, then more spikes and plateaus as more people discover the media and begin to use it. A part of that is due to the nature of technology and the economics behind it. New developments typically are costly. The first people to try out the new technology are the ones who can afford it. Early sales make money for the manufacturers who can then improve their products and make them more affordable for everyone else. It’s a useful cycle and one that can’t be broken.

The Media Fear Factor

Another thing that affects new media is the fear factor. Most people are a suspicious of new media at first. It takes some time to play around with it and get comfortable. After people are comfortable with new media they can take the next step and go in a little deeper - like a child getting comfortable with the deep end of the swimming pool. The Internet has finally reached a point where a large number of people are becoming familiar enough and comfortable enough with it as a medium that they can trust it to some degree - not all the way yet, but to a large degree. That’s a good thing for the Internet.

The Print Media Life Cycle

But news print media is at a different juncture of its life. It’s in the waning years. People are losing trust and confidence in the medium. Why? Partly because it has let us down. Journalists are no longer hailed as the saviors of populist causes as they were once thought to be. Walter Cronkite was once referred to as the most trusted man in America. If there is a most trusted man in America today you can bet it isn’t a news media personality. And that’s one of the reasons that advertising is in decline in print media. I wouldn’t count on that trend reversing any time soon.

News and Media Blog