Christopher Mercer.Net

I have too many blogs! That is right I have to come face to face with the fact I am not able to read the amount of content I currently have flooding me on a daily basis. I need to simplify what information I want and delete the rest.

By now, you are likely wondering what in the world I am raving about. The simple answer is that I am raving about Google Reader, my RSS reader. This product allows me to unify all my online – which almost is my exclusive source for the majority of content – reading. However, it has caused a daily wading through hundreds of articles, blogs, and headlines. Most of these I do not read and will never have the time to read. Many are duplicates reproduced on another feed or I will learn from in another manner. This is the biggest downside to unifying your regular reading into one source. You become overwhelmed with the volume you actually attempt to consume or you become over zealous in your subscriptions.

Because Google Reader is online, I am able to access it from any internet-connected computer, and that saves me from the trouble of having to remember which sites I am subscribed. Copying that configuration to each computer I use (work, school, laptop, etc) would become daunting. I prefer this method to downloading a client and installing it. The obvious benefit is if I remove or add a feed, I do not need to worry about duplicating the process on multiple machines.

Now back to my original problem, what can I cut to make my reading experience more enjoyable. What RSS reader are you using, and what are some of your favorite blogs? Feel free to discuss in my comment section.

Lifehacker has recently turned me onto a website to track the lifespan of your iPod, and for me the news is not good. In just over a month my little 20gig Generation 4 iPod is expected to die!. 42 days to be exact!

The iPod Death Clock is a great site if you are an owner of one of these ubiquitous devices. Only asking you 4 or 5 questions about how, or how often, you use your device and combining that information with make and model details gathered by inputting your serial number. The death clock estimates how long you have left before you have to consider another upgrade. For me the answer is obviously bleak! It is a good thing I have been considering the 16Gig iPod Touch as a replacement.

How accurate is the information? Well according to the site the battery on my iPod should be around 10% of its normal capacity. This reflects well with my actual experience recently with using my iPod. The device typically only gives 2 or 3 hours of playback before completely dieing on me.
The results page also gives a maximum expected life of 3 months before having to replace this device. While 42 days seems rather quick for me, I do not really expect it to last beyond 3 months based on my recent experiences.

iPod Death Clock comes with one disclaimer that the site is for entertainment purposes only. While they claim their repair shop statistics mirror the results they produce, they also state actual life span may vary significantly. Basically they are asking you to take their results with a grain of salt. Keeping in mind no one can predict the exact date your iPod will die.

How long do you have left on your iPod? Let us know in the comments section.

A lot of people do not understand the power of online marketing, of good site design, and how to leverage all the Web 2.0 ideas to help your bottom line. This is a bit of a problem in more rural settings I find and a prime example is the unfortunate lack of development on the Salmon Festival website.

The Exploits Valley Salmon Festival has been running in my hometown for 23 years and has attracted some of the biggest acts in Canadian music. It has played host to bands like Great Big Sea, the Doobie Brothers, I Mother Earth, Nelly Furtato, and Bryan Adams to name a few. While the town is willing to spend money on the concert, and rightfully so, they seem unwilling to spend money on any development of a web presence.

I use the term web presence instead of website because in today’s marketplace it is much more than just a static site with a few pictures, it is an experience. An event with an established history like Salmon Fest should be willing and able to do more than a site developed in 1998. This is part of their marketing tool and a valuable tool when deployed properly.

Compare the online presence of Ozzfest or Lollapalooza to that of Salmon Fest. You will see a more interactive site that matches the themes of the event, the music and the bands. It makes the visitor more interested in the concert and when done right can make them feel included. A great site to gauge how this works is the Salmon Fest 2007 Facebook group that blossomed at just over 2000 users who were sharing stories, pictures, and talking about this years lineup.

A festival site could include a blog from the organizers talking about the developments happening in the planning of the next concert. They could use it to even start a few rumors to get people talking about show. Toss in a podcast with a few people talking about it and you have an audio or video stream to each of your fans. I could even imagine listening to a podcast and having the organizers invite the bands booked to play to promote the show on the podcast. These are just a few of the possibilities a company, festival event, or organization can employ to constantly attract attention to their bottom line. In this example, it would be ticket sales.

These are just a few of the things to consider when putting together your next web presence.

After doing some work today I decided to log into my Facebook account and see what the people are doing. It took some time to get a page to load and originally I thought it was a slow connection but instead I was greeted with the “we’re upgrading” page. This upgrade was a little unexpected as there were no rumors flying around about it or anything posted on the Facebook blog about the site going through an upgrade.

This could be a functionality upgrade or a hardware upgrade. I do hope that it is a upgrade of functionality to the Applications and Advertising code they have been using.

Edit (31/07/2007 3:20pm) What I don’t get is who does a upgrade in the middle of the day? Normally people do this in the lowest traffic period.

I have been resisting the desire to toss my hat into the recent facebook debates happening among the tech reporters and commentators (like myself) for a week or two now. Between the Apple iPhone and Facebook postings I have really had my fill of the two but after some careful consideration I wanted to discuss the current status of Facebook and where it might be heading.

As any user of the Facebook site is now familiar, they have opened up their interface to allow the addition of applications to people’s profiles. This step was ingenious and quite possibly the biggest move of its type for any closed system site. However, it has allowed quite a bit of clutter to the peoples profiles. From monkeys that you can pet, to super walls, and reading lists, the applications range from the interesting to the absurd. But what do they really do? Well the answer is simply not that much. They do allow a certain level of customization of people’s profiles but in most cases, they do not allow any particular insight into the user.

Instead, the applications have become one of the most contentious aspects of the site. In order to use an application you have to add it to your own profile, an unnecessary step. This simple oversight by the Facebook developers now requires that you add an application to interact with it on someone else’s profile. For example, the “graffiti wall” application allows you to make graffiti on another person’s profile, but for me to use it I must add it. When I add the application, it has certain access to read information in my profile such as who I am. This should not be a necessary step and should be rethought by the developers of Facebook. In addition, most applications automatically request you send an invite to your friends list. This should also be rethought and the option to invite presented but in a different manner such that the default action is to invite no one. Let the applications distribute virally based on success not the current default action to invite everyone on your friends list.

Another aspect of the site that needs major rethinking is the advertising model that Facebook currently employs. As it stands right now the advertising model is random, and not content sensitive. I have seen the 300 DVD release advertising on profiles where the movie is not listed. The advertising model could benefit from an update where the ad’s presented are more reflective of the content on the page. If I am viewing a profile of a friend who is an avid reader – such as Sara Inkpen – then I should see primarily ads relating to books or book stores. Not workopolis or the movie 300. The advertising model should relate to the primary interests and content of the page being viewed. A second possibility is ability for Facebook users to purchase advertising space cheap and have their ads appear in their networks and groups.

If Facebook can address these two issues while retaining the functionality of them they will have a powerful model to expand. Such an expansion has been bantered about recently as a possible Internet wide protocol for social networking. Facebook is a closed system, but imagine the possibilities of expanding that system network wide. Allowing individual websites to implement code – much like how HTML allows them to organize and display content now – that establishes more meaningful connections and organization throughout the network. The Internet could evolve from an inter-connected network of networks to an inter-connected social network of social networks. Such an advancement could even rival Google and how it dominates the way in which we find information online.

As I write this post many of my Facebook readers will notice that the total number of “notes” I have posted has been reduced. This is due to a recent exploration of the Facebook Terms of Use. With many rumors flying around about Facebook selling personal data to third parties, I began an investigation of their terms and how they apply to individual user content.

As they are written now the Facebook terms state

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

This agreement gives Facebook a blanket license to use, reuse, and even sell your creative work to third parties, use in advertising, and many other possible uses.

I contacted Facebook regarding these terms and was responded to by they very helpful Zack. In his correspondence with me he stated

While it is highly unlikely that Facebook will ever use material you upload to site, this previous clause states that Facebook retains license to do so. This license does not affect ownership or copyright privileges for material uploaded to the site.

While he never states that Facebook will not use my or your content and this is just a legal protection, he suggests it is quite possible they could use my content, it is just unlikely. However, he is right. Their terms do not negate your rights to your material. It just gives them free reign to use it as they will, without having to obtain your permission.

Since it was obvious this was their stance and they were not moving from it I considered their potential over-reaching of their terms of use. With these blanket rights a writer like myself looses all value and control over their work to a blanket license transfer. It’s akin to making a movie, releasing it, but giving permission to theaters to hand out free DVD’s of that movie regardless of a ticket purchase.

Given this I also investigated other opinions and in a recent CNet podcast the Buzz Out Loud crew stated that this is typical of all online sites such as MySpace, Friendster, etc. Thanks to the investigations of Matthew Gillard I come to find out that the Blogger – arguably the largest blogging site – terms of service state

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services.

This forward thinking usage agreement helps users retain full control over their content and retains any value it might have.

So what why should you care. Well if you are a creative type, you feel that the pictures you take, video’s you edit, stories you write, have potential value then you could be at risk of having your content reused without your permission or remuneration. This is how the current terms work within Facebook and I for one am not comfortable with it. This is something we all have to consider when posting any content to sites like Facebook. What are implications of uploading? Who has access to see? Who is my content being shared with? Is someone else using my content for direct or indirect profit?

Something for you to consider, as such I have removed my blog content from Facebook. Readers can view it at www.christophermercer.net

BTW that earlier comment about Facebook selling user data. I have found no basis for that accusation, fact is that personal data is protected under the same terms of use.

This morning brings an interesting article from the CBC about swim lessons. According to the article - and the Safe Kids Canada organization - swim lessons alone will not save your kids from drowning.

My first reaction to this article was “DUH!!!!”. Having worked as a lifeguard - and the application of common sense - I know that children need active supervision while swimming or even playing around water. Since even the best swimmers among us can easily drown it does not seem very academic that supervision is necessary to keep your children safe. I don’t know what is more shocking; that the article states the obvious, or that it was needed to be printed at all.

The article did point out 5 great tips that every parent should know.

• Actively supervising children.
• Training adults in CPR, first aid and water rescue.
• Using four-sided fencing, not three, around home pools.
• Wearing life jackets.
• Teaching kids to swim.

So this summer keep your kids safe and keep an eye on them!

In talking about my most recent postings about DRM, the DMCA, and their effects on intellectual property I started to consider why the MPAA and RIAA are so determined to force these kind of restrictions upon consumers.

The argument most often put forward by those organizations is that they need to protect the intellectual property of their members. Whether it be a song; a movie, a book, a photograph, or a painting, it was the art form that was being protected. The unique combinations of words, or melody, or paint on a canvas, was what was being protected. I have no argument with this. As a writer I feel I should be fairly compensated for my work and when a person uses my works - for which an economic value is attached - then I should be fairly compensated or they would have infringed on my rights and I have a recourse to take against them. The recourse comes in the way of copyright laws. If I can prove infringement of my rights to gain economic value for my writings then I can take action. This is the basic premise of why the MPAA and RIAA want to use DRM and lobbied for laws such as the DMCA. They want more ways in which to protect the economic rights of their members.

With new technology comes new risks and in 1998 when the DMCA was drafted and passed into law few people expected the far reaching effects. However, the law placed the power in the hands of copyright owners and their representatives. With a online world where most people are anonymous and the emergence of digital content new challenges were faced. The result was instead of proving that an infringement took place and going after the infringer directly these lobby groups had power to just notice the digital content provider or host of suspected infringement and they had to take down the material in question. So now instead of proving that you stole that shirt from the store, you were assumed guilty until you proved you did not take the shirt. This is the real world analogy to how the DMCA can be used and often is.

So the result has been that the MPAA and RIAA have set up brokerage houses for out of court settlement of copyright violation of their works. Why pay tens of thousands of dollars defending yourself in court when you can pay thousands of dollars and settle. The problem with this is you admit a crime you may have not committed based on your financial ability to defend your self. Such was the case of a woman who was sued a few years back by the RIAA for downloading songs to her computer, the problem with the case was she never owned a computer and it was eventually tossed out.

Considering all this and argument that it is the IP they are protecting, then why are we being charged full value for each copy of a movie or song? Consider the converse. If I have purchased a DVD and I want a digital copy to play on the my laptop so I don’t have to carry the disk around I can purchase it from an online retailer like iTunes but I can’t - legally - make a copy of it myself. I have purchased the IP already and subsequent purchases should be just for the new form of media. If I own a record then getting the CD version should only cost me the cost of the media not a full repurchase of IP contained within or if I scratch a DVD a replacement should only cost me the media cost.

So basically organizations like the MPAA and RIAA are using DRM and laws like the DMCA to protect their economic interests and creating an system in which we have to repurchase content with each new format that is introduced. Thus removing our options to legally use it a manner that suits our needs, these are the basic principals of Fair Use in the US and Fair Dealing in Canada.