Tag Archive for 'Technology'

We <3 Rightcart

Published on September 27, 2006 in Announcement and Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , .

It’s been a while since we’ve posted here, and the draught has finally ended.? We figure the best way to get back on track is to bring something newsworthy, relevant, and cool.

If you haven’t heard of RightCart, we invite you to check them out.? This e-commerce technology is fully integrated into any webpage running their code .? And the code required to use RightCart is only 3 lines long, and given to the user.

We recently launched our Polyvibe Store using RightCart.? If you check out our catalog page, you will see the RightCart is snugly plugged in to the right column.? You can add things to the cart and check out without ever leaving our page, and it’s totally secure.

We think this is the coolest online checkout we’ve ever seen, so we want to share it with you.? You can see how it works for yourself.? It’s even Myspace friendly.

We <3 RightCart, and we just wanted to share our enthusiasm with you.

MPAA decides they know more than the Supreme Court

Published on August 3, 2006 in Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Check this article:? Sue Google, Not Us, Torrentspy tells Hollywood (spotted on PCWelt)
In a legal reply to the MPAA, TorrentSpy claims a person can find more torrents through Google than you can through a torrent portal.? The argunment goes on to say that since TorrentSpy doesn’t have any copyrighted work on their site, they cannot be held responsible for what people do after they leave their site.
The basis of lawsuits like this is MGM vs. Grokster.? In that case it was decided by the Supreme Court that Grokster actively provided tools and promotion for pirating.? Of course, the Supreme Court also ruled in that case that the act of file sharing, or using p2p software is *_not_* illegal.? They also ruled that unless a manufacturer actively promotes piracy, they cannot be held liable for what people do with the software.

So to review for you, TorrentSpy points you toward people who are sharing files you may want, and that’s all they do.? They don’t suggest you steal stuff, and they don;t promote any method of copyright infringement. According to the Supreme Court, that means they’re not breaking the law.? The MPAA (and the RIAA, too) don’t really care if the Supreme Court allows TorrentSpy to point you toward copyrighted material that’s shared.? They are going to sue us all until we pay what they feel they deserve.? And if that isn’t enough, they twist the meaning of copyright to protect themselves, and not the artists.
Now I am all for the protection of copyrighted works, and I don’t see a problem with the moral issue that somone’s movies or music shouldn’t be free _if there is percieved value._? But if reality is that people are sharing media, and that most people _still_ buy media, then there is a softer hand to be used to convince us to buy stuff.

As an aside for Americans, these big companies are just going to keep sidestepping the law, and continue to force our government to protect their interests, at the expense of ours.

Hello, Linkie Winkie ; )

Published on July 29, 2006 in Blog. 3 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

As Chief Technology Officer for Polyvibe Entertainment Group, and the resident internet-nerd, I am a bono-fied stats geek. Every email we send, every myspace post, every blog post, every news update, every everything, I look to see if what we did made an impact on our site traffic and our visibility. So, as I was going through the list of bots in our feedburner stats, I noticed a new one. The one that calls itself Linkie Winkie. What’s interesting about this bot is that the corresponding page is decidedly lo-tech and quite spartan, only sporting a few links and an Alexa traffic chart. The only other text on the page is this cryptic description:

“Linkie Winkie is a bit of a social experiment and we want to see what happens. We’re not going to tell you much about it, except that its a very altruistic little site and loves to be talked about.

So if you can work out what it does, and get your timing right, then Linkie Winkie might help you out for a while.”

From what we can tell, by giving a shout out to Linkie Winkie, they will in turn to give you a shout out. How it does this, is still a mystery, but one blog discusses the effect of Linkie Winkie, while the other provides a bit on who is behind the experiment.

I’ll provide an update here if anything comes of this, but participating in a social experiment of the web 2.0 variety just seemed like a fun think to do on a Friday evening.

The 1% Rule vs. The 1:1 Ratio

Published on July 28, 2006 in Article and Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , .

An emerging trend in the online world is that the gap between content creator and the content consumer is closing. Personal Computers come pre-installed with many content creation tools, and many more aimed at the Amateur to the Pro-Am content cretor abound. One only has to look at iLife, Apple’s Am/Pro-Am content creation suite (now complete with a webpage editor that sports RSS feeds).
Some have put forth a suggestion, that only 1% of the online world is creating content. This seems awfully low to me. I have always thought of it as The 1:1 Ratio, for every content creator in a community there is a consumer, that in turn is also a creator. Their numbers, stating that out of 100 people, 1 would create the content, 10 would interact with it (commenting on it, offering suggestions to improve it, etc.) while the other 89 users would simple view it.
Maybe I just travel in more creative circles, because anecdotally The 1:1 Ratio holds true for me. Their numbers come from YouTube’s upload vs download ratio, and obviously skew the results because of the size of the sample. I’m not doubting their findings, but it’s interesting to hear the same theory in different contexts.
Read the article, and decide for yourself. It’d be cool if you left a comment too, and let me know which rule holds more true for you, The 1% Rule, or The 1:1 Ratio.
digg story
originally published on dr.xnlb.com

Interview with “RIAA vs The People” founder Ray Beckerman

Published on July 28, 2006 in Blog. 0 Comments Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Peter Brown of the Free Software Foundation speaks with Ray Beckerman, lawyer for defendants in RIAA lawsuits about the impact of the RIAA’s legal strategy on the internet, copyright, DRM and our digital freedoms. He leads the discussion with the reason why only small law firms, or individual lawyers will ever take up the cause of those being sued by the RIAA.
He also dissects a typical RIAA “investigation” that form the basis of their suit against their customers. In essense the RIAA creates an account with a p2p network, finds users with RIAA tunes in their shared folder, and files the report. However, and this is the kicker, there is no proof of wrongdoing. That is, there is no proof that the user did not obtain the song through legal means (purchasing them, or making a back-up copy from a CD they legally own), nor is there proof that other users have ever downloaded the song. In other words, most of the RIAA lawsuits brought against consumers are mere ploys to extort money.
Many users have settled out of court. The few that fight it get into long drawn out court cases where every dirty trick in the book is used by the RIAA Legal Team to make it prohibitively expensive for the defendant to continue fighting the case. Lawyers, such as Ray Beckerman, are working pro bono or for significantly reduced rates on the behalf of the few brave souls willing to stand up and challenge the RIAA. Especially since many of the defendants have never used p2p software before, and until their subpoena arrived in the mail had never even heard of Kazzaa and the like.
If you want to help, you can donate money to the Free Software Foundation.
Keep up with Ray and his fight against the RIAA at his blog: RIAA vs. The People.
Download The MP3 recording of the call
digg this story
originally published on dr.xnlb.com

Twitter!