Patent Office Finally Gets It Right
Clear Channel's "Instant Live" Patents Revoked

All Access is reporting that the patents pertaining to Clear Channel and Live Nation's "Instant Live" technology have been revoked. According to All Access, the "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will revoke a patent on live concert recording technology owned by CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, following a successful challenge launched last year by the ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION."

This is a win for both competing companies, who were prevented from carrying on business in many areas, and tape-traders AND taper-friendly bands. Clear Channel had been rather pushy with the patents, claiming "exclusive" rights to record shows and sell copies immediately after the show. All Access continues, stating "NEW YORK-based DISC LIVE by early 2003 had already recorded acts and sold instant CDs at shows featuring the ALLMAN BROTHERS and BILLY IDOL, but encountered obstacles in 2004 when CLEAR CHANNEL prevented the company from recording shows and selling CDs at CLEAR CHANNEL venues on the PIXIES' reunion tour."

With the revocation of these patents, the industry will continue to see growth and competition in regards to the instant sale of live material. This can only be a good thing for bands, who will not be locked into one company's pricing scheme, and for consumers, who will not be forced to subsidize high costs associated with monopolization.

One only hopes that the USPTO continues to examine patents and revoke ones which inhibit proper competition. I can think of a few "software patents" i'd like to see examined...

e-voting takes another hit:
Ciber Inc. loses certification.

In what I feel is the most important fallout from the HBO documentary "Hacking Democracy" to date, Ciber Inc. has been decertified from testing and approving electronic voting machines, due to lack of quality control and accountability.

This is a good step towards securing the e-voting procedures that our governments insist we use. By decertifing a lab who seemed to be nothing more than a "shill" for Diebold Election Systems, we can begin to genuinely test these systems and see whether they are as secure as Diebold claims (or as insecure as many people claim.)

But, I believe that we need to go a step further. As it has been proven (on film) that the Diebold machines can be compromised, and these machines were, in fact, certified by Ciber, I believe we need to examine any links which may exist between Ciber and Diebold, especially financial links. Does anyone within Diebold hold ownership in Cyber, or vice-versa? Have there been large payments of money between Diebold and Ciber? Have there been any signs at all of any improprieties between Diebold and Ciber?

I voted on a Diebold voting machine in the last general election, but I will not vote on the same machine during the next Presidential election. After recent revelations, I no longer trust Diebold Election Systems or Ciber Inc. And, while I may be only one voter, I can't be the only one. And, if enough voters voice their objections, we just may win this battle, after all.

Embedded Journalism...
...or why truth can be more dramatic than fiction.

Many of us have watched the news coverage of the so-called "War on Terror," and have seen what can only be considered an unprecedented use of what's referred to as "embedded journalists." Embedded journalists eat, sleep, live, and move with combat troops in the front lines, and the embedding process is designed to give us a good look at what "really happens" in wartime situations.

But, have we stopped and considered whether or not we're really getting the whole story from these embedded newscasters? For most of us, I doubt the thought has crossed our minds. But, I've thought about it. And, so have the members of a team of researchers from the University of Oklahoma, led by Professor Michael Pfau. Their study, published in the December 2005 edition of the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media sought to see whether or not these embeds, as I will refer to them, were straying from impartiality.

As I thought, the study did show this to be the case. The results of the study confirmed that the results "revealed that compared to nonembedded reports, embedded television news reports were ore positive toward the military...and conveyed greater trust toward military personnel." (Pfau et al, 478.) But, what caused these results? Looking at the causes is the only way we, as informed media consumers, can understand why this happens.

Irwin Altman and Dalmas A. Taylor are leading researchers in the field of interpersonal communications, and their Social Penetration Theory can be used to make an attempt to explain these results. According to Altman and Taylor, closeness in a relationship only occurs with gradual buildup of self-disclosure, or "talking about yourself." However, Pfau and his team propose that, under stressful or "hot" situations, self-disclosure would seem to be accellerated, thus creating a closer relationship sooner than would otherwise be expected.

This rapid buildup of a close relationship, it seems, would cause problems with objective news reporting. As a general rule, reporters frown upon "getting too close to" their sources, in an attempt to preserve objectivity. Also, the quick buildup (referred to as "swift trust" by Pfau) would tend to cause people's perceptions to be more biased towards their sources than otherwise would be expected.

The combination of a close relationship (and almost symbiotic reliance on) a source, combined with the biases inherent in a "swift trust" situation would appear to be almost entirely counterproductive to providing an adequate level of objectivity in reporting. Yet, I fear that "embedding" will continue. Because, you see, embedding provides a dramatic feel to a real situation, and it seems that drama sells, even in news.

It's an unfortunate situation. But, what should we do?

All I know is that I'm not watching the news anymore. When news looks like fiction to me...it's kind of a turnoff.

United Artists to be revived...
...by Tom Cruise??

(Cross-posted to my JMC-262 class blog.)

Sometime last week, it was reported that Tom Cruise and MGM had come to an agreement to revive United Artists, the studio originally founded by Mary Pickford, D.W. Griffith, and Charles Chaplin.

My original reaction to this? Well, my original comments aren't suitable for print. However, after curling up (or in this case sitting in a rather uncomfortable chair in the basement of the UWM library) with the latest issue of Variety, I've come to a rather odd comclusion for me:

This may actually work. And, it may not suck too badly.

Don't get me wrong, I still hate Tom Cruise with all the loathing I can muster up from the darkest regions of my soul. But, as bad as some of his more recent films have been ("War Of The Worlds," anyone?), as a producer, Cruise does have a somewhat-impressive track record of success. Take for example, a small snippit of his work (as a producer) between 1996 and today:

• Elizabethtown
• The Last Samurai
• Shattered Glass
• Narc
• Vanilla Sky

Not a shabby lineup, by any means.

Also, Variety has brought to my attention a fact that I was previously unaware of. Apparently, Cruise is not contractually obligated to star in any of these films, only to produce them. This lessens my disgust greatly, as I am generally opposed to much of what Cruise has starred in during the past 5-6 years. Not only that, without Cruise starring in these films, they may be more likely to live up to the legacy of United Artists and what the studio stood for so many years ago in Hollywood.

So, I'll wait to reserve judgement. Until I see UA release Battlefield Earth II.

At that point, all bets are off.