I enjoy a good clean fight as much as the next guy, but watching Canadian cable companies simultaneously laying a social media beating on television broadcasters while showboating to seem to be on the side of consumers, while the broadcasters return blows from behind a human shield of local programming cuts is, well, too much for me. I prefer tuning into the UFC and if I want to go-Canadian, Georges St-Pierre, because the opponents seem to have more respect for each other.  As Corus Entertainment president, John Cassaday notes today to Canada’s broadcasting and telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, at hearings in Gatineau, QC, the current crisis mentality in the Canadian broadcast industry is in turn fostering cynicism, animosity and a risk of a rush to the exit for advertisers. Enjoy the CRTC hearings, if you can stomach them.

“Culture is impossible without a rich public domain – culture grows by accretion, with new forms building off the old,” is the compelling mantra of Nate Harrison in his modest-but-powerful video posted on  You Tube about the ownership of sound samples.

Harrison casts light on the issues and implications of copyright in music (specifically, musical samples) through the history of the “Amen Break,” a six-second drum sample from the B-side of a chart-topping single from 1969. This sample was used extensively in early hip hop and sample-based music, and became the basis for drum n bass and jungle music… a six-second clip that “spawned several entire subcultures.”

The original creators of the Amen Break have never sought legal action to claim ownership of this notable six-seconds of sound. It seems that by the overall amount of its appropriation by producers and Dj’s after the advent of sampling technology in the early 1980s the break had entered into the public domain. Harrison notes, “to trace the history of the Amen Break is to trace the history of a brief period of time when it seemed digital tools offered a potentially unlimited amount of new forms of expression; where cultural production at least musically was full of possibility by virtue of being able to freely appropriate from the musical past, to make new combinations and thus new meanings.”

There are two copyrights involved in the Amen Break. The first is the copyright in the sound recording: if the owners of the masters could prove copying of their recording, then this could be the basis for an infringement claim. However, it appears most uses have been re-recorded (e.g. the drum tab on Wikipedia is readily available, and certainly electronic kits would involve a re-recording – not only to ‘clean up’ the sound quality, but also to chop it up, space out the individual beats and create a new sound conducive to drum n bass).

The second copyright is in the musical composition. This is the interesting part. When the original recording was first released, the break was not what would at the time have been classified as a hook. It was a break, which by the standards of the day, I would argue, was not unique enough to attract copyright protection. Since then the break has been sampled and used to the point where it has attracted an independent identity (with the help of advancements in sampling, recording, and production technology). The interesting part is, who owns the new identity? Does a new identity accrue back to the original copyright holder? Is it something that one of the early appropriators could claim copyright in? Is it a public domain identity? Seems it’s the latter, in that its use is ubiquitous and no one person can step forward as being the original user of the same four bar beat used in a manner that now by more contemporary standards is unique.

When I read in the Globe and Mail that Pirate Bay was being purchased for $9-million, I figured this could be a good example of how innovators, who often are branded as outsiders or scofflaws, eventually find their niche. Well, that still may be a path to success on the Internet, but apparently not in the case of Pirate Bay, where the new owners are attempting to set up a business that would sell the metrics of illegal file sharing back to the victims (i.e. to sell information back to movie, record and software companies about content uploads and downloads by the site’s estimated 20 million users). So far there has been a particularly frosty reception from the owners of those rights.

Started by a group of pro-piracy Swedes in 2003, Pirate Bay soon became one of the largest bit torrent trackers in the world.  From then until now the site has been involved in a number of lawsuits, which eventually led to the 2009 arrest and sentencing of the four main operators of the site. In June 2009 Global Gaming Factory GGF (a Swedish advertising company) announced they would buy Pirate Bay for approximately $9-million, a deal that was set for August 2009.  The time has arrived and as one might have expected GGF is facing criticism. Seems the only value to be extracted from this business model is notoriety.

Anyone who’s not on an iPhone might be Apple-green with envy over the amazing choice of apps available for download at the iPhone App Store versus the apps at Blackberry’s App World. There are far more iPhone apps, they tend to be less expensive, and they don’t run on Blackberrys. Is this inevitable, when apps are written for different operating systems because they have to be written in different languages? Is this a continuing, deliberate fragmentation of the market to create the appearance of separate solitudes between Microsoft and Apple operating systems and the devices that run on them (i.e. Blackberry and iPhone, respectively)? Maybe both, but what else is new? Well, crowd-sourcing efforts by developers to get their apps on both platforms with the least amount of effort, by creating more elegant code that shares the logical design of the app across both platforms.

What this means for the longer term is that as more and more software development kits (SDKs) in Objective-C (iPhone) and Java (Blackberry) get into the hands of grassroots developers hoping to make money selling their apps online, there is going to be a push toward cross-platform programming. As pointed out by developer Teabot on Stackoverflow.com, the core application code can be written so that it appears very similar on either platform, with API wrappers around the edges of the code that can be re-usable.

To achieve the same look and feel on each platform would require very different ‘physical components’ according to developer Grouchal on Stackoverflow.com, but Teabot goes on to claim that you should be able to share the logical design of your application if you carefully separate it into highly decoupled layers. This is still a big win because the logical application design probably accounts for a large part of your development effort, according to him.

This type of chatter shows it’s inevitable that the division of the apps market across operating system platforms will become eased, as grassroots developers become more inventive in finding ways to bridge the language barrier.

by Tanaz Irani (Spec. Hon. B.A, Pol.Sci.)

It is common and accepted knowledge that once users establish an account on any one of the numerous social networking sites available today, those users are making themselves vulnerable to privacy invasion in a number of ways. Earlier this year Facebook updated its policies on user generated content to allow virtually all uploaded material to be used by the company for advertising, marketing, or essentially any other purpose, even long after the user deletes an account. These policy modifications did not go unnoticed, and in fact were met with public complaint and threatened legal action. This ultimately encouraged the good people at Facebook to return to the older version of the policy; however Facebook is not the only entity that users need to be aware of in respect to privacy concerns.

More and more employers are using social networking sites as a tool to screen potential employees. With the multitude of recent layoffs, and economic hard times, employers are turning to such digital tools to help sort through the numerous applications they receive – weeding out those whose online profile does not meet the standards or desires of the company. Is this (very personal) background check fair? The truth is that outside Quebec, B.C, and Alberta, Canada’s invasion of privacy laws do not extend to information in the hands of private entities, so user beware!

There are a number of pros and cons involved in the question of social networking sites and their interaction with the corporate world. While employers are accessing and assessing the posted content of current and potential employees, complaints made by these individuals against companies for their hiring and firing practices, are on the rise.

It is worth mentioning the “Cisco Fatty” case (as coined by the Globe and Mail newspaper on March 23, 2009). When following a job offer at Cisco, a Twitter user in California sent out a “tweet”: “Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty pay cheque against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work.” In less than an hour, she received a reply -from a worker at Cisco- and word is she never got that fatty pay cheque.

Companies on the other hand not only can benefit from this watchdog potential, but also from the timely, financially-sound simplicity of socializing and networking via these sites. Perhaps a ‘poke’ on Facebook does not make the same impression as an expensive luncheon with a client, however it might suffice as a reminder to the client. Of course, it must be noted that such financial benefits are offset by lost productivity related to employees wasting company time surfing around, chatting with friends, stalking old classmates and taking part in innumerable quizzes, games, and various other applications. Heck, I may not be Twittering about it, but all the research and writing for this particular blog entry was done on company time! Is this lost productivity or will the ebb and flow of the digital corporate collision balance itself out? As an increasing number of people have quit smoking, could taking a social networking break be seen as the new smoker’s equivalency break?

The CRTC new media hearings, with their far-fetched funding idea to promote Canadian content online, appear to be going bust. Ok, perhaps it is not over until it is over, but we have passed the middle mark and things are not looking too progressive. The initial stage of these hearings started three weeks ago with submissions from various interest groups. The CRTC heard arguments from groups including The Canadian Independent Record Production Association, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, and The Independent Media Arts Alliance. The CRTC also accepted submissions from ISPs who are in fact, up to bat this week, offering their side of the commentary. In sum, I think University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist described it best as ‘a huge disappointment with submissions short on specifics, long on rhetoric, and filled with inconsistencies’ (www.michaelgeist.ca).

Canadian content on the Internet? Is this Canadian content that is intended to develop self-identity among Canadians from Halifax to Victoria, or intended to entertain web-surfers from Hong Kong to the Vatican? The CRTC, from the outset is taking a flawed approach with its overly-generalized and divided definitions of ‘broadcast’ versus ‘ telecom’. These traditional understandings of ‘media’ are no longer viable. Many of the interest groups seem to be taking outdated perspectives and offering similarly redundant solutions. Overall, it seems the various parties involved would first need to realize where they stand in light of contemporary media discourse, and after that agree on (or learn) a common vernacular by which discussion may be facilitated.

As these hearings sputter to an end, it leaves me thinking not of the Canadian content that will potentially never be produced, but of the vast and expensive lobbying and discussion-making industry that absorbs so much of the value that already could have been rolled into producing that content. As is often the case, the cost of the process tends to squander the resources that could be directly applied to achieve the results that the process is said to be fostering – maybe not money so well spent? While the New Media Hearings seem to be an expensive flop, hopefully at least we can salvage the conclusion that government regulation in the area of online content, is a bad idea.

After ten years of refraining from involvement, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has turned its sights again on the Internet – not just to regulate data traffic, but arguably to regulate the creation of online content itself.

Having decided on a ‘hands-off’ approach at governing content on the information highway back in 1999, the CRTC currently is holding hearings on the question of whether a fund should be set up to develop Canadian content online – paid for through a levy on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that surely will be passed along to consumers and business users.

Controversy at the hearings will center on the question of whether the CRTC should be stepping in and playing an influential and regulatory role within the new media/Internet sector.  Insofar as large pockets of the Internet have remained untouched by government intrusions in the past, the nature and character of Internet content has developed into something different than that of traditional media.  The expressed concerns of independent producers and artist groups such as the Alliance of Canadian Cinema Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) or the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) are compelling in their depiction of Canadian content being washed away in a flood of potentiality for non-Canadian content, yet, while considering the reality of these worries, one must take account of the value in keeping the Internet as an organic medium, free from restrictions that want to make it conform to traditional notions of cultural and commercial value.

Perhaps ISPs should stop whining and get used to the responsibilities they have as the bulk-providers of new media content?  I think the issue is more complex.  The CRTC’s move to levy a charge on ISPs to fund a program to develop Canadian content online mirrors the CRTC’s Canadian content efforts regarding traditional broadcasting and merely recognizes the significance of the Internet on our culture.  I am all for the funding of Canadian artists and producers, but the notion of Internet content regulation seems to me essentially idealistic, whimsical, and in fact, quite fantastic.  Not to mention unattractive, because it is dampening innovation.

On Tuesday, Alain Pineau, the national director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts made the claim that ‘broadcasting is broadcasting whatever the distribution platform.’  I disagree, not only on the basis that this generalizing notion is a slap in the face to many of the great media theorists of the last century, but also, and more practically, it disregards the unique character of the Internet and its nearly limitless potential.  One must be very careful to see the big picture here.

Am trying to figure out twitter…

I am signing up for twitter…

Internet streaming is still not ready for prime-time. Sir, I thought you should know. I’ve taken a few minutes today to watch history in the making online. After all, you’ve harnessed the Internet for your presidential campaign. You’ve used social networking sites and blogs to spectacular advantage for fund raising and getting the vote out. You are a young guy, with-it, Internet-savvy. You’ve got a lot of Facebook friends. You must be cool. In that spirit, I thought I’d try to keep up with you and watch your inauguration speech online. Boy was I underwhelmed. It felt like 1999 all over again, like I was on a dial-up connection, gamely trying to do something… revolutionary.

No matter which “live” feed I tried, they all were the same. Likely there were massive user demands on the big news media sites today, but I must report, be careful, they were not up to what we’ve come to expect from you online. President Obama, you need to know that you have not been well served today online by the conventional, television-based media. All the choppy, lagging or downright dead “live” feeds of your inaugural speech were a drag. If the medium is the message, then you should watch your back.

President Obama, I hope you can get on this problem, maybe tonight after work, hopefully not spending too much time on tech support while you’re fixing the rest of the world.