John M. Setzler, Jr. Life in Black and White

What’s News?

Untitled

Originally uploaded by John Setzler.

I am a firm believer that newspapers will cease to exist as we know them at some point in the not-so-distant future. There are several powerful factors that will make this prediction come true. The question is when...

I enjoy reading the newspapers occasionally. I don't do it often though. Usually if I'm reading a newspaper it's because there is something specific in that issue that I want to read. I find newspapers to be cumbersome. Who invented the page size? It's hard to sit down and manage a newspaper. If I'm at the dinner table with it, it takes up too much space there too. The paper they are printed on are just one grade above toilet paper. If it gets wet in the driveway before you go out to get it, just drop it in the garbage on your way inside. I just find them inconvenient most of the time.

What's killing the newspaper?

Obviously, the internet is the main source of problems. I can find the stories I want to read at any of many sources. If a story is just breaking, I may not want to wait until tomorrow to read about it in the newspaper. If I do read it in tomorrow's paper, It's the exact same content I have already read online since most papers are getting non-local news from the same wire services. One thing I find most interesting about online news services is that video clips are becoming quite popular. If video is available, which it is in many cases, it replaces the still photos that accompany a news story. Another killer of the newspaper is the cell phone / PDA combo. Most of these gadgets can be programmed to receive news stories at the moment they become available.

I do prefer simply checking into a website for news. I have my favorites too. Some news websites are so 'ugly' and hard to navigate that I just avoid them. Lots of the ugly sites are so packed full of advertising and pop-ups that it's just annoying. The sites I visit regularly DO have advertising on them, but that is to be expected. Someone has to foot the bill for the site and its content. I just choose the sites that are easy to navigate and 'pretty' in general. I don't like having to spend a lot of time digging for a headline. Some web developers could use some training in graphic design and the KISS method.

I believe that newspapers should be free. The fifty-cent cover price at the newsstand doesn't come close to covering the cost of compiling the news, printing, and distribution of the paper. Newspapers are funded by their advertisers. I think additional advertising of some type could also fund the printing and distribution of the free newspaper. The circulation numbers of any particular paper seem to be a key figure in selling advertising to businesses. The more papers distributed, the higher the advertising cost also. If a newspaper is free, I wonder if the distribution would increase? I also believe that, with proper thought and planning, the free newspaper could still be delivered to our homes and businesses at no cost to the consumer.

The other alternative is to take the completely digital route. What if the newspaper was only available online? 98% of the news I read is online. The only disadvantage I can see with this idea is that I can't take my computer to the toilet with me very easily. I could setup a wireless configuration so I could take the laptop to the bathroom with me probably ;)

I think that selling advertising in a completely online newspaper would be difficult. I wonder if advertising buyers are having a difficult time giving up the printed ads in favor of electronic? I guess this idea is reminiscent of that 'paperless office' concept that people kept discussing in the late 1980s as PCs proliferated. People DO have a difficult time letting go of a printed page in favor of viewing it on the computer screen. I know this first-hand from my 18 years working in the I.T. industry. I personally oversaw the printing of multi-hundred page reports where the only pages actually viewed numbered less than five. Maybe our personal fascination and love of the printed page will keep printed news media afloat for a while longer...

If you have read this far, I would love to have a comment from you. Tell me where you get your news...

Viacom vs YouTube

I knew it was going to happen sooner or later.  Viacom has filed a $1 billion copyright suit against Google, owner of the popular YouTube video sharing website.

I'm not a huge fan of YouTube, but I do see understand its popularity and place on the world wide web.  I'm not going to discuss the nitty-gritty of this particular lawsuit, but I would like to ramble about the idea in general.  Viacom is filing suit against Google over copyrighted material that is being posted on YouTube by its users.  This material mainly includes episodes of TV shows that are copyrighted and may not be re-broadcast in this manner.

I'll start out by saying that I hope Viacom wins the lawsuit.  I doubt that it will happen though.  YouTube has no real control over what its users upload.  I setup an account for myself to see what sort of controls are in place to manage this, and there is only one, and it's not really a control.  When I tried to upload a video, the upload screen displays the following notice before it allows you to send a video file:

Copyright Notice

Do not upload copyrighted material for which you don't own the rights or have permission from the owner.

The YouTube system can't evaluate an uploaded video file to determine if it's copyrighted or not.  There is no way to do that.  It depends on its users to be honest.  Oddly enough, users upload copyrighted material anyway :)  YouTube is becoming (or has become) the Napster of video.

I don't believe that Viacom will collect $1 billion from Google over this.  Google will simply defend themselves the same way Napster did by making the claim that they have no control over what their users share via the online system.  What will happen is that YouTube will either be forced to shut down or put controls in place to stop the infringements.

The internet is a strange place.  I have been meaning to buy a book I saw at the bookstore called The Psychology of the Internet for some light reading.   People don't behave the same way when they are online as they would in the grocery store or the shopping mall.  We may sing at the top of our lungs in the shower or behind the wheel of our car, but we wouldn't do it at a sporting event or walking down the street.  For some reason, it doesn't seem wrong to download software that is available to us on a website without paying for it.  The same holds true for music files and video.  If the sytem never asks us for payment, why should we pay for it?

I believe that a majority of the people know what is right and wrong.  Whether or not we participate in the wrong is often determined by whether or not we think we'll be caught.  If there is no penalty or embarrassment to be suffered, we'll often do things that we would never consider doing under different circumstances.

There is also a very good argument out there that simply states that lots of people have no idea what copyright is or why it matters.  My 12-year-old niece has no clue what copyright is, but she does know how to get music from the internet to her iPod without having to pay anyone a dime.  She simply doesn't understand, and no one has ever enlightened her.  If I chose to have a discussion with her on the topic, whe would then know what copyright is and why it matters.  Would she stop downloading 'free' music once she knows the difference?  I'm not sure, but I doubt it.  Why would she start paying for something that she is getting for free with no consequences?

I'm old enough to know what the internet was like in its public infancy.  I first accessed the internet via CompuServe back around 1992 or 1993... I'm not sure of the exact date, but there were no local internet service providers at that time.  Since then, the once primarily informational internet has exploded into a commercial maelstrom that sucks every web browser towards a page that asks for a credit card number.  The informational sources still exist, but they have become much more difficult to locate through search engines.  The information that is available may or may not be documented, but if you can see it in your web browser, you can have a copy of it for yourself, whether it's copyrighted or not.

Some possible results of this free flow and distribution of information will include huge financial losses for the information and technology sources.  The music industry has become a big loser due to illegal sharing via the internet.  This and this article  show a rather alarming trend in music sales.  Fans used to be what made music successful.  Will those same fans (or the newest generation of fans) be what causes the industry to fail?

Just some food for thought...

Race and Ethnic Relations

I'm taking a sociology class this semester called "Race and Ethnic Relations."  It's really a combination of this sociology class and a history class called "Native American History."  The classes are combined and only meet for the last half of this semester.

I started reading the text handouts in the Race and Ethnic Relations portion of the class the other day.   I got disappointed with the content before I finished reading the second page.

I'm not a racist.  I love people.  I love all people.  Politically, I don't really know where I stand.  I'm a registered Republican voter, but I consider myself to be very near the center.  When I vote, I don't vote consistently for one party or the other.  I vote for a person rather than the party they represent in most cases.

Anyway... In the first few pages of the sociology text, some statements were made with which I totally disagree.  I don't know the title of the book or the name of the author(s) because all I have is photocopies of the first chapter, provided by the instructor.  Here is the excerpt that got me off on the wrong foot with this text:

The incident shows the heights that racial and ethnic hatred in the United States can reach today, but the reaction to the expression of prejudice also shows some bitter irony: the team for which Rocker played was the Atlanta Braves.  For many years tribal groups have objected to "Braves" as a name for the mascot of a professional team and everything that goes with it: the sale of rubber tomahawks, the incessant chanting by fans trying to immitate a war chant, and the appearance of the faithful in "war paint."  Yet the team and organized baseball have remained supportive of "Braves" as a mascot, as have other sports about the "Redskins" and "Blackhawks."  ... "Largely unmetioned was the corporate-backed name that makes the earliest inhabitants of North America a mascot like some nonhuman animal.

This text is discussing the Atlanta Braves' John Rocker and the trouble he got into with some racially slanted comments in a December 1999 published interview.  His comments were inappropriate and he was sent to thearapy.  The problem I have with this excerpt is the subject of mascots that represent native Americans.  I can obviously see that the author believes that the use of these mascots is racial in some negative way.  The part I disagree with is that professional sports has chosen mascots that make the earliest inhabitants of North America a mascot like some inhuman animal.

Let's look at the mascots of Major League Baseball:

The Diamondbacks, Braves, Orioles, Red Sox, Cubs, White Sox, Reds, Indians, Rockies, Tigers, Marlins, Astros, Royals, Angels, Dodgers, Brewers, Twins, Mets, Yankees, Athletics, Phillies, Pirates, Cardinals, Padres, Giants, Mariners, Devil Rays, Rangers, Blue Jays, and Nationals should cover of all Major League Baseball teams.

When I consider these team mascots, I see a couple of themes.  Some teams are simply using mascots that represent where they are located.  A few teams are using mascots with historical themes related to their location.  Some teams are using animals and people that represent topics such as strength, speed, agility, beauty, cunning, and aggression.  The Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians are the only two teams in Major League Baseball using Native American mascot themes, and I believe those certainly do fall into the representative categories I listed.  Why would a sports team want to be represented by a negative theme?  We don't seem to have any teams using Junkies, Gangsters, Murderers, Pimps, Lynchmobs, vigilantes, or poachers.  By the same token, we probably won't see any teams called the Pansies, Geeks, Nerds, Cotton Balls, or Kissers.  Team mascot choices ultimately intend to project strength, power, and/or a sense of identity.

I have read stories in the past regarding mascots being protested for various reasons.  I don't understand why a Native American would be upset with a professional sports team for identifying with these characteristics by choosing an Indian reference as a team mascot.

This may be one of those issues that I'm just not capable of understanding since I'm not a member of the offended group.  However, the way the author of my text presents his ideas does show me that I can expect certain agendas that I don't agree with.  I'll have to take extra time to consider what I'm reading to separate facts from editorials.  I suppose sociology, however, is editorial to a large extent anyway.  Dictionary.com defines sociology as:

the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society; the science of the fundamental laws of social relations, institutions, etc.

We have to accept certian ideas at face value.  In my Psychology class last semester, I did learn that I have to watch out for cultural biases when I'm trying to make decisions and formulate opinions.

I'll probably follow up on this post in a few days.  I'm thinking about it enough that I'll probably bring it up in class when the opportunity presents itself :)

Shame on Ebay!

Back in December, I was shopping on Ebay for a 4gb compact flash card to use with my camera.  I found some really good deals on Sandisk Ultra II 4gb cards from a seller using the ID "UT-TRADING."  The auction I was looking at was about to end, so I put in a bid.  The auction ended, and I thought I had gotten an excellent deal on this compact flash card.

A few minutes later, I was telling a friend of mine about this deal.  He asked me if I was sure that it wasn't a counterfeit card.  I had no idea that there was such a problem in the compact flash market.  I did some research and found this article:

http://martybugs.net/articles/fakesandisk.cgi

I read the article and then decided to go look at my seller's feedback.  About 24 hours before my auction ended, I noticed a feedback in his list where a buyer had filed a complaint about this seller pushing counterfeit Sandisk compact flash cards.

My Mistake #1:  I did not check the seller's feedback before I made a bid on his auction.

At this point, I'm frustrated.  I sent the seller a note via Ebay and asked him to confirm that the product I had purchased was not counterfeit.  I got no response.  I sent a second request several days later.  I got no response.  I filed a complaint with Ebay about my issue.  Ebay promptly responded with a letter telling me that I had to work it out with the seller.  I sent the seller another note telling him that I had filed a complaint with Ebay and did not intend to pay for the auction.  He sent me a note back telling me that the cards worked fine and he sold them all the time, but he did not deny that the cards were counterfeit.  I responded that I did not intend to pay for the auction and I never heard anything back from him.  I did tell the seller that I would not post negative feedback for him on this auction, but that I would not pay him for it.

Yesterday, almost 2 months after the auction ended, I got a note on my ebay account where he filed a complaint with Ebay that I had not paid for the auction.   I responded to the seller that I was still not going to pay for the auction and that I was going to leave negative feedback for him because he was pestering me.  I left him negative feedback.  The worst thing that could happen to me would be that I could lose my Ebay account, which was actually threatened in the letter I received from Ebay voicing the complaint of the seller.  That wouldn't be a huge deal.  I don't trade on Ebay that often anyway.  Later in the day, I got another note from Ebay informing me that the seller had requested credit for the listing fee on my auction.  All I had to do was check a box indicating that the auction had been settled with the seller.  I did so and everything should be over with now, and I havent' lost my Ebay account over the whole deal.

What's wrong with this picture?

#1 - There is a seller (and probably lots of them) on Ebay who are peddling counterfeit goods.

#2 - The seller is aware that he is selling counterfeit goods.

#3 - Ebay is aware that this seller is selling counterfeit goods.

#4 - Ebay is not doing anything about it.

I think Ebay is ignoring this problem.  I'm sure they don't really care because they are making money either way.  I wonder if Sandisk would care?  How can Ebay allow somethign like this to go on?  They keep saying that they want to protect the buyer, but they aren't walking the walk...