IMA 505 History- Xingyu Long

SUBJECT AREA:

business advertisement

I will choice the business advertisement as the subject area for this class because this area started from ancient times to the present and witness the changes of the media. Advertisement is a good topic to explain the past, present and future because it always be in the business.

 

link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising 

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/ads/amadv.html

Advertisements

IMA 504 – Ethical Issues – Eirik Bjorno

Social Media Ethical Paper

Facebook has grown into one of the most powerful media conglomerates in the world. It started out as a social network at Harvard, and now it is worth billions of dollars. When Facebook is based on the users contributions and activities, is it right for Facebook to take advantage of their users by selling their photos and information and keep all their revenues themselves?

The social media market keeps growing every year. In 2012 only eight consumer social networks had publically available revenue run rates for 2013, on average, they’re forecasting $3.7 billion. In total, they’re estimating revenues of $8.3 billion.  Last year, in 2012, ten of the consumer social network sites had publicly available revenues, which amount of $10.7 billion global revenues, averaged across the ten is $1.7 billion. The growth is simply remarkable.

But how can these free social media sites make this amount of money? It all tracks back to Ad revenues. In late July 2013 data showed that 89% of all online advertisers use free social media marketing, while 75 % use paid social media advertising. The report also looked at how many of the advertisers were going to raise their budget for social media marketing the next year; and the result was that 69% (!) of the current advertisers were planning to increase their budgets the upcoming year. (Clarke)

So from talking in percent, lets look at the actual numbers. According to Lori Andrews Facebook made $ 3.1 billion in advertisement revenue last year. But that is not even considered a noteworthy amount compared some other Internet Service providers. Google made $ 36.5 billion in revenue in 2011. With these numbers in mind, we need to realize that Google, Facebook ad twitter don’t have a storage full of valuable objects. There are no electronic gadgets; no luxury cars, airplanes or Rolex watches. The only inventory they have is our personal information. Our photos. Our Emails. Even our relationship status. That’s what the online service providers are selling. That’s why their advertisement revenues are so high. They are selling information about us so their advertisers hit their demographic better. (Andrews)

We have all experienced an ad for new headphones pops up on Facebook five minutes after we searched for it on amazon. Facebook let’s advertisers access their database, point out exactly who of the 850 million users they want to hit, and BOOM their sales skyrockets. It is effective. With Google it is even worse. If you mention the word “soccer-cleats” in an email to your coach, expect advertisements for the Adidas Predators in your browser. Google access all you personal Email and sell the information to advertisers who are more than willing to spend some extra dollars to hit the right target group. (Andrews)

One thing is the advertisement. It can actually be helpful some times, and you might end up doing a good deal. But the bits and bytes about your personal life can easily be used against you in certain situations. Software producer Lexis Nexis has a product called Accruint for Law Enforcement; this simply gives the government information about what people do on social media sites. Immigration Services has several examples where they scrutinize photos and status updates on Facebook to reveal sham marriages. The immigration agents simply use an algorithm developed in a study by Lars Backstrom, a senior engineer at Facebook and Jon Kleinberg, a professor of computer science at Cornell, to tell who you are really dating; Backstrom and Kleinbergs algorithm only use the to, from, bcc and timestamp in your emails and Facebook messages to tell if you really are in a relationship. “The best indicator of who is paired with whom comes from how closely their mutual contacts are connected, something the researchers call “dispersion”. By measuring dispersion, Backstrom and Kleinberg were able to predict relationships with more than 50 percent accuracy.” (Dalenberg)

More commonly is it when employers sometimes decide whether to hire people based on their social media accounts. One study states that 70 % of recruiters in the United States have rejected a candidate based on their profile on social media sites. You can obviously defend this by saying it is your own responsibility to clean up their social media profiles to avoid this, and it is a valid point.

Harder is it to defend the practice of stereotyping in data aggregation. You might experience your application for credit being declined not based on your own credits or finances, but on aggregated data – what other people who fit your “profile” have done.  If soccer players or dog owners are more likely to renege on their credit-card bills, then the fact that you’ve looked at soccer ads or posted a photo of their three dogs might cause a data aggregator to classify you as less credit-worthy.

Are all these practices ok? Is it ok that Google, Facebook, Twitter and others are taking advantage of us? They take advantage of our personal life. One thing is the cyberbullying, the Internet frauds and the dangerous information accessible to us on the Internet, but when we try to be as careful as we possibly can we still might be in risk of being damaged. The government takes legal action based on what we tell friends and family online. I don’t think it is ok, and I think it is ethical wrong by the Internet service providers to share the information they way they are doing.

On the other side, are they legally allowed to do it? Yes indeed. When you sign up to use any Internet service you are required to accept a disclaimer. If you don’t accept it, you are simply not granted access to the product. All providers of online services make sure they cover everything in as complicated language as possible, preferably with a size 6 font to make it even harder to understand. Below is a part of Google’s disclaimer:

“When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services.” (Arora)

We are selling our soul to Google when accepting these terms, but do we have a choice? Google have by far the best service, we wont be able to use Google Docs, Gmail, Google Chat etc. if we don’t accept. With these services being the best available on the market, most of us are willing to accept these terms.

Now, after accepting that this is the reality. There is not much we can do to stop this practice from happening. Shouldn’t these companies who makes millions of dollars of our personal information at least give something back to us? I’m not talking about dollar bills raining over Manhattan, but what about charity programs. How much are Google, Facebook or Twitter given away to charity a year?

Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg was according to CNN the nations second-biggest charity donor in 2012, with only Warren Buffet over him on the list. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan gave $498.8 million to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; a simply outstanding gesture from Zuckerberg, who apparently is worth 12 billion dollars. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation issues grants for multiple causes in the San Francisco area. In 2012, its charitable causes ranged from funds for victims of the California wildfires to groups providing food and shelter to the needy. What I specially would like to endorse Zuckerberg for though, is the $100 million donation he gave to public schools in Newark New Jersey in 2010. That was his first big splash in the philanthropy space when he announced the donation live on Oprah. (Gross)

Google decides to give back in a different way. In 2011 they gave over $100 million to a whole slew of charitable organizations all over the world. Those organizations included ones that focus on education for girls, ending modern day slavery and human trafficking, as well as bringing more jobs to third world countries. (Olanoff)

Also Google co-founder Sergey Brin and his wife Anne Wojcicki put in $223 million into their own Brin Wojcicki Foundation. The establishment donates to a number of causes that, in 2012, included women’s and environmental issues and a foundation dedicated to curbing poverty. The couple also donated nearly $33 million last year to the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research. Microsoft Co-founder Paul Allen added another $309 million to the pool, when he donated mostly to the Allen Institute of Brain Science.  (Gross)

As we see it is not small number we are dealing with when it comes to donations from tech executives, and it is clear that they focus on giving back to the community. But it is enough? Looking at the numbers going in and out from these massive web based companies we can see that their activities in the philanthropy area is only a very small part of their total revenues. I understand it is a business, and they don’t have to give away any of their money, but isn’t that the right thing to do? They take advantage of the people because they can, and because there is no law stopping them. Before I wrote this article I would easily say that it is disgraceful how Facebook, Google and Instagram take our information and photos to gain even more income.

However, looking at the numbers it is hard to say that Facebook and Google are not aware of their social responsibilities. Donations of the amount they have made are truly amazing, and will hopefully make a difference in the areas where they are spent. Still, I would like to see more specific donations, like Zuckerbergs donation to schools in New Jersey. When money is plowed into major general organizations there is a tendency that a lot of the money is spent on administrative expenses. For instance donations to The Silicon Valley Community Foundation is among many looked at as a ticket into the inner circle of the financial elite, rather than money spent to help others.

To conclude I would like to state that if Facebook, Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and Google keep sharing their wealth with people, organizations and areas in society who needs it, they show their users respect. I would like to see generous donations to the executive’s heart matters, rather than donations to their friend’s charity funds. It is possible for the general public to change their mind about their information being shared, if they get something in return. It is like taxes; you pay the price for the bigger picture to grow better.

Bibliography

Andrews, Lori. Facebook Is Using You. 04 February 2012. The New York Times Company. 03 12 2013.

Arora, Nigam. Be Prepeared To Sell Your Soul If You Use Google. 27 01 2012. Forbes.com. 02 12 2013.

Clarke, Tara. How Do Social Media Companies Make Money? 04 12 2013. Money Map Press. 01 12 2013.

Dalenberg, Alex. Amorous Facebook algorithm unlocks the secrets of love and fake marriage. 30 10 2013. American City Business Journals. 02 12 2013.

Gross, Doug. Facebook’s Zuckerberg is nation’s No. 2 charitable donor. 12 02 2013. Cable News Network. 02 12 2013.

Olanoff, Drew. In 2011, Google gave back $100 million to various charitable organizations. 11 12 2011. The Next Web. 01 12 2013.

IMA 504 – Eirik Bjorno – Social Issues

Social Issues Online

As a parent, have you ever wondered if your child is being bullied? Have you ever wondered why he has less friends coming over to play flag-football on you lawn? Have you ever thought about why he spends so much time on the computer? As the new generation spends more and more time online, we know less about each other’s social skills, and therefor it’s harder to pick up the signals. Since the Internet was created around 40 years ago the ways we communicate has changed gradually as new technology has developed. What started out as a great asset to the educational system, with information available online at all times, has now grown into a major headache for educational institutions that don’t know how to use Internet in an effective way. The new generations social lives, and social interactions are based on online communication. Is the Internet serving its purpose, to connect and inform people, or has it grown out of control?

15-20 years ago professors mostly used Internet to access information and distributing it out to the students. That way Internet had great value for the educational system. They were able to limit and filter out bad information before communicating it to the receivers. Many old scholars claim that this period was the most accurate and effective use of the Internet.

When grew up I used Internet to update my self on news and sports results, and play simple Java games. As I grew up I realized the power of the Internet. In the early 2000’s I realized I could access a lot of educational material online, and I started to use it for my homework. Heading into the new millennium the Norwegian educational system realized the opportunities Internet offered and built large computer labs in almost all schools across the country. According to Bargh and McKenna over 600 million people worldwide had access to the Internet in 2002.

The access to the Internet grew fast, and we quickly surpassed our professors in knowledge. We played games. We studied. We could spend hours in front of the computer; and at that time there was no danger signs. You still had the 3-4 guys who got obsessed with computers and online activities, and isolated themselves from social interactions, but mainly the technology served its purpose. It prepared us for the new era, as we picked up basic technological knowledge. We took it home, and many young students had to teach their parents how to use the new computer when it arrived.

When Internet became a normal addition in homes around the world, the major threat was virus attacks, Trojan horses or different cyber crimes. Now we should be more concerned by our own social behavior patterns online as it reduces our social interactions. The growth of social networking cites and blogs had not only changed the methods of communication, it has also presented a lot of opportunities for people to reject their real social life.

All kids now have instant access to the social networking sites. Cellphones, tablets or laptops has made it hard for parents or other adults to control their kid’s online activities. When parents or other adults are not in a position to monitor kids activities, if often result in bullying. The word “Bully” can be dated all the way back to 1530s (Donegan), and bullying basically contains two parts: an intimidator and a victim. We can find evidence of bullying occurring on all levels in society hundreds of years back. Naturally this social problem carried on online, and has been enhanced the last 15 years. The term cyberbullying was introduced with the creation of the Internet, but the first concrete statistics surrounding the issue from Cyberbullying Research Center dates back to 2004. Is it a coincident that scholars showed interest in the topic the same year as Facebook was founded? Maybe, but you can still draw some interesting lines. In 2011 The Consumer Report published an article stating that One million children were harassed, threatened or subjected to other forms of cyberbullying on Facebook during the past year. We cannot blame Facebook for this, but the consequences can be fatal.

Looking at the numbers from Cyber Bullying Research Center we are moving in the wrong direction.  In 2004 20.1 percent of high school and middle school students reported that they had been cyber bullied at one point in their life. After 2004 the numbers have gone up. In 2010 Examiner.com published a survey from the National Crime Prevention Center, showing that 40 percent of teens with Internet access had been bullied online. The last statistics is from 2012, where the number had increased to 42 percent. (Murray)

Recently The Guardian wrote about Hannah Smith, a 14-year-old girl from Leicestershire, who killed her self after she had been taunted online for years. She even reached out on a public forum to get tips on how to go through with her suicide, and was told to “Drink bleach” from one the members. It is brutal. But unfortunately it is real. Not all stories of cyber bullying goes this far, but the phenomenon can change someone’s life forever. In this case we have two of the major social issues on the Internet. Cyberbullying being one, while you can claim that website should protect children from dangerous information. Filters or restrictions should apply. But as World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology states in one of their online journals:

“ …the blame for teenagers social and ethical misconducts  should not be put on the technology alone. He stresses the importance of other contributing factors to the problem, such as the upbringing and the environment. In addition, Moll questions parents’ “very little or no knowledge” about their children online activities. She also criticizes their lack of responsibilities in protecting their children from the Internet’s harmful possibilities…”

This leaves me to a small survey I did among my diverse group of friends; to get a better understanding of what measures parents takes to be involved in what their kids do online. Among my American friends the tone was similar. The family had one computer in one of the common rooms. This way the parents could control their kid’s activities. My Scandinavian friends on the other hand say this was far from their reality. The only people trying to set any regulations for our online activities were the IT guy working in our elementary schools. He blocked the most popular gaming sites and other inappropriate material. Because of the school system in Scandinavia, we were home alone from around 1 pm until our parents came from work at 4pm. So there was not much supervising when we played with the computer.

Now times have changed though. It is hard for parents to keep up with all the social media, and pay attention to their kid’s activities. For a while parents thought that to be ‘friends’ with your kids on Facebook, Instagram etc. would increase the control, but the new generation knows way more about technology than their parents, so therefor they can easily block them out of parts of their activities via privacy settings.

American Osteopathic Association published in 2011 an article stating that 85 % of parents report that their child has a social networking account. 54% of these parents are afraid that their kids are being bullied via social networking sites, while 16% know their child has been or are a victim of cyber bullying. This proves how real the problem is in nuclear families around the country.  What makes it an even more severe is the anonymity. Internet gives you the opportunity to mask you identity, and therefor impossible to trace the source of the bullying. 81 percent of the youths asked said it is easier to get away with bullying online than in person. (Murray) Neutralmagazine presents a valid point: “Victims are no longer able to pinpoint the source of their pain and as a result, the campaign of abuse becomes all encompassing, taking over the victim’s lives through fear of abuse at any time.” This is the fear that changes people lives for good. This is the fear that can break even the strongest guy.

Not only the anonymity differ from what we know as conventional bullying. The power dynamic can also be drastically changed. The bully is typically a stronger person, either physically or mentally. Through bullying online you can experience young unsecure kids attacking others in the same boat, to boost their self-confident. It’s ruthless and powerful. Gallagher point out what I consider the worst consequence of this form of online interaction: “Cyber bullies can act from the comforts of their own home, and in reverse, their victims are no longer safe in theirs. Messages and photos are able to be sent from morning to night and as they do so, the ways for the victims to escape are become increasingly limited.”

Despite all this serious issue with the Internet, Internet does not make its users any more depressed or lonely, rather the opposite. It offers a variety in communication that can help the user to develop as its social skills. What is important for us as future educators and parents is to try to educate the new generation in correct and safe use of Internet. We have a responsibility to create good habits among the new users.  For parents to be involved in their kid’s use of smartphones and laptops is key to limit the problem with cyberbullying. The main problem is that Internet, and technology is developing so fast that the new generations pick up on the changes faster than professors and parents.

Many organizations are working on raising awareness around cyberbullying. This work important, but even it’s the people you look up to who has the highest impact on you decisions; your brother, your cousin and you uncle. If we can implement a better attitude towards the issue at all level in our society, we will se the numbers go down.

Bibliography:

American Osteopathic Association. “Parents Fearful of Cyberbullying.” Parents Fearful of Cyberbullying. American Osteopathic Association, n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2013.

Bargh, John A., and Katelyn Y.A McKenna. “THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL LIFE.” (2004): n. pag. Yale University. Annual Reviews. Web. 3 Oct. 2013.

Consumer Reports. “That Facebook Friend Might Be 10 Years Old, and Other Troubling News.” Consumer Reports June 2011: n. pag. Consumer Reports. Consumer Union of US, June 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.

Donegan, Richard. “Bullying and Cyberbullying: History, Statistics, Law, Prevention and Analysis.” Bullying and Cyberbullying 3.1 (2012): 33-42. Elon University. Elon University, Spring 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

Examiner.com. “From Cyber Bullying to Sexting (stats and Videos): What’s on Your Kids’ Cell?” Examiner.com. Clarity Digital Group, 29 Jan. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

Gallagher, Tom. “The Highs of Social Networking and the Rise of Cyberbullying.” Neutral Magazine. Neutral Magazine, n.d. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.

Murray, Corey. “25 Eye-Opening Statistics About Cyberbullying [Infographic].” EdTech Magazine. CDW, 18 July 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.

Press Association. “Teenager Hannah Smith Killed Herself Because of Online Bullying, Says Father.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 6 Aug. 2013. Web. 2 Nov. 2013.

Ramli, R. “The Internet, Its Social and Ethical Problem to the Young and How Curriculum Can Address the Issue.” World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology59.125 (2011): 645-48. Waset.org. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.

IMA 504 – Eirik Bjorno – Legal Issues

Online Streaming

The Internet does not only offer us new communication methods, it also has changed the entertainment world. If you miss your favorite TV show it is not a problem anymore, as you can just watch it online when you find the time. Movies, TV-shows and music are all accessible to you on all your portable devices at all times. Spotify, Netflix and YouTube are all companies who deliver entertainment conveniently through the cloud and help you catch up with your favorite shows, but the television is still where it is accessible first, or is it?

The last 5 years we have seen a growth in online video content. Netflix leads the way as they hold 32.3 percent of the market share. YouTube and Hulu follow with 17.1 and 2.4 percent respectively. When Netflix restructured their business and separated their DVD-by-mail service from the online service, they lost about 800.000 subscribers. But only two years later, the number of subscriptions had gone up by over 5 million. It shows that online content is the future. (Kerr)

In addition to these independent companies, most of the major networks have well developed online streaming services.  Here you can either by a subscription, or watch their content with ‘limited’ commercials for free. A move the TV-networks was forced to do, to keep up with the online development.

By having content available online there is a great risk of running in to copyright disputes. Who owns the content? For the TV-Networks this is a non-issue as they own their content and can do as they please with it. For the independent services, deals with major networks and proper compensations are necessary to deliver a solid service. One of the factors in Netflix dominance in this market is their significant deals with Walt Disney and DreamWorks Animation as well as partnerships with smaller networks all across the world. (Tejeda)

Netflix took it to the next level this year, as they launched their first original series: House of Cards. In August, Kevin Spacey, the star of “House of Cards,” gave an enthusiastic speech about the death of the cable television model, the future of content, and the role of Netflix in providing viewers a viewer-centric form of delivery. (Tejeda)

According to Internet research firm Sandvine; The future will see “real-time entertainment applications dominate fixed access networks, accounting for two-thirds of total data usage in 2018, driven largely by ubiquitous integration between devices (e.g. smart TVs, set-tops, game consoles) and streaming services,” (Kerr) These services are on their way into the market will full speed. While Netflix has been able to avoid serious copyright lawsuits, the development of offering real time streams of TV-shows brings in a lot of new and different issues. One of the companies offering these services is Aereo, and they have been under legal scrutiny since 2009.

Aereo is an up and coming broadcasting program that allows subscribers to stream live television on mobile devises or computers. Barry Diller, who founded Fox Broadcasting Company together with Rupert Murdoch, has invested in the company and it charges its users 8 dollars a month to use its services. Aereo is currently available in eight different market areas including New York, Boston, and Miami. Major television networks such as ABC, NBC, and 21st Century Fox feel this new telecommunication option is imposing on their copyrights. Aereo is streaming the video content and gaining revenue from the production of these major media companies without their permission. NBC, ABC and 21st Century Fox decided to take Aereo to court and request that the service was shut down because of copyright infringement.

Copyright can be defined as: “a form of protection provided by the Federal Copyright Act to authors of original works, which includes literary, musical, and dramatic works; pantomimes; choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion picture and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works”. The author of the work is always the owner of the copyright.

The definition of an infringement, according to Mann and Roberts, is as follows: “Infringement occurs whenever somebody exercises, without authorization, the rights exclusively reserved for the copyright owner. Infringement needs to be intentional. To prove infringement, the plaintiff must simply establish that he owns the copyright and that the defendant violated one or more of the plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the copyright”.

Aereo claims they are not breaking any copyright laws with their methods. Ramachandran explains in her article how Aereo works: “Aereo’s technology works by using racks of dime-sized antennas in its facilities to pick up over-the-air signals from TV broadcasters. Subscribers are assigned individual antennas when they choose to stream a channel. Aereo stores the programming on individual digital video recorders, converts the signal to a digital format and sends it over the web with a few seconds of delay”. In other words Aereo offers all their programming as ‘private performances’. The copyright law only covers public performance. It’s simply any individual’s legal right to receive over-the-air TV and record shows for their personal viewing.

Aereo claims that since each one of their subscribers receives the TV shows on a unique antenna (which is the subscribers account on Aereo) it is therefore not transmitted to the public. TV Networks, on the other hand, claim that it doesn’t matter that each user can only access a unique copy. They say that since the service is available for anyone to use, it transmits copyright material to the public, so-called ‘public performance’. What speaks for Aereo is a legal precedent surrounding a Cablevision case from 2008 involving a cloud-based digital video recorder.

The Cablevision case is probably the reason for why the lower courts have sided with Aereo. In this incident the central question was: does it matter where a hard drive lives? Instead of everyone having a DVR box in their homes, why can’t Cablevision Systems Corp. launch a service in which all of the digital video recorder’s hardware lived in the cable company’s central office? Cablevision Systems claimed that the recording system (or streaming system) only had shifted the location of the hardware into the cloud. The TV shows are not archived but simply picked up live, with a couple of seconds delay, and then transferred to people’s iPads, computers, or iPhones. It therefore follows the rules of private performance rights. The Second Circuit’s Court of Appeals ruled that the 1.2 seconds of buffer material was in fact an “embodiment” of the copyrighted work but that it was only of “transitory duration” and therefore not copyright infringement. In other words, there is no violation of public performance rights. (Anderson)

While the Cablevision case speaks in favor of Aereo NBC, ABC and 21st century Fox look towards another case to find the legal precedent they need to shut down Aereo’s service. FilmOn X is almost identical to Aereo, as their service also offers an array of small antennas that are assigned to a specific, individual user. “These antennas capture local television signals and deliver video and audio to FilmOn X’s users”, Eriq Gardner writes. This case was assigned to the U.S. District judge Rosemary Collyer and she eventually took guidance from the Supreme Court in the case. Regarding the public/private performance rights, she concluded that, “The Transmit Clause, which applies whether ‘members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times,’ also plainly captures FilmOn X’s DVR-like capabilities.” According to Mann et al public performance includes all types of performable works, such as literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works. Sound recordings are not included. The copyright law covers public performance. On the contrary, the copyright law does not cover private performances. It’s simply any individual’s legal right to receive over-the-air TV and record shows for their personal viewing. As earlier mentioned, FilmOn X argues they don’t deliver content to the public because their service facilitates a one-to-one relationship between a single antenna and a viewer. However, the judge in this case finally rules the broadcasters to win the case. She says that even though users have an assigned antenna and hard-drive directory temporarily, all the unique antennas are networked together and provided by one video-streaming company, which allows anyone to become a member. FilmOn X has therefore violated the broadcasters’ rights of public performance. (Gardner)

Although Aereo wont the first rounds of their case; it is still alive and moving up the legal system chain and the networks request the case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Whether the case is taken in by the Supreme Court or not, it will have a direct effect on how television is broadcasted in the future. Are we moving in a direction where private online companies can use TV Networks work and sell it without consent?

Netflix and YouTube and other major streaming networks have worked out deals with the owner of the material, or they pay the copyright holder a fee every time the copyrighted material is streamed out through their channels. The entertainment industry realize they have to agree to these terms, as their content is available illegally online, and by pairing up with streaming websites like Netflix, they can benefit from their copyrighted work. This system works. Why, simply because the networks or the production companies still have the edge when they deliver the content first. When ABC airs the new episode of Scandal they will have numerous paying customers because consumers want to be the first to watch it. If Aereo and similar businesses are allowed to broadcast television live we will run into problems as the major production companies will not be willing to give away the last edge they have to online broadcasting. That we are moving towards an online world is a given, but as for now we still need television in the way we know it and we need the legal system to realize and deal with the threat we are facing. I am a big fan of cheap convenient online entertainment, and hold subscriptions with Netflix, Spotify and three Norwegian TV channels. Still I’m afraid that if we give third party networks access and legal support to show TV live we are moving in a direction where there is no turning back.

 

Bibliography

Anderson, Nate. Cablevision remote DVR stays legal: Supremes won’t hear case. 06 June 2009. Conde Nast. 06 11 2013.

 

Gardner, Eriq. Hollywood Reporter. 09 May 2013. Hollywood Reporter. 06 11 2013.

 

Kerr, Dara. Video streaming is on the rise with Netflix dominating. 14 05 2013. CBS Interactive. 04 11 2013.

 

Mann, Richard A. and Barry S. Roberts. Essentials of Business Law and the Legla Enviroment. 11th. South-Western College Pub, 2012.

 

Sharma, Amol and Shalini Ramachandran. “Broadcasters Ask Supreme Court to Intervene Over Aereo.” Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 11 10 2013. B4.

 

Tejeda, Alejandra. Netflix and the Rise of Online Video Streaming. 24 September 2013. Compete Inc. 02 11 2013.

 

 

IMA 501 – Summary of Course Contents

Below is a list of all the criteria for this course. Please make sure all criteria are met and you have posted – just one continuous post. Do not have multiple posts, please.

Abstract

Mission

Flow Chart

Wireframes

Design Samples

Cost Chart

Revenue Generation

Social Media Marketing

Prototype Working Site

Sheerwood – Social Media

Facebook:

These pages have a well defined audience and diverse content!

https://www.facebook.com/forbes

https://www.facebook.com/VolunteerMatch

https://www.facebook.com/createthegood

https://www.facebook.com/pbsteachers

https://www.facebook.com/MTV

Twitter

Most if not all use twitter as a platform to deliver short messages.

https://twitter.com/essencemag

https://twitter.com/NatUrbanLeague

https://twitter.com/nbc

LinkedIn

B2B approach. These pages more serve as a resourceful platform between business.

http://www.linkedin.com/company/volunteermatch

http://www.linkedin.com/company/volunteerhub?trk=extra_biz_viewers_viewed

http://www.linkedin.com/company/39952?trk=vsrp_companies_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A1520685021386282208165%2CVSRPtargetId%3A39952%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary

Pinterest

Highly used to encourage participation. “Word of Mouth”

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/1695

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/16958936068435098/

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/16958936068435088/8936068435156/

 

Instagram

Great platform for documenting.

http://instagram.com/thedreamdefenders

http://instagram.com/p/LgQr39mhNh/

http://instagram.com/naturbanleague

http://instagram.com/p/Ksha1nEGMt/

http://instagram.com/p/K8cQtWpel9/

 

YouTube

On demand video content

http://www.youtube.com/user/DDODtv?feature=watch

http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector?feature=watch

http://www.youtube.com/user/invisiblechildreninc?feature=watch

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK7tptUDHh-RYDsdxO1-5QQ