Java for iPhone

One of the top ten annoyances with the iPhone will move down the list if Sun's plan is even moderately successful and they're indeed able to construct a decent Java platform for Apple's wireless handset.

Deep Blue Something - Breakfast At Tiffany's

Click to Play

Deep Blue Something set to play at People's Court in Des Moines tonight, but first they hit Capital 106.3's Studio C and play a couple familiar songs.  This one's Breakfast At Tiffany's, which got a lot of local airplay following its '96 release.  It hit #1 in the UK and #5 on this side of the pond.

Spam Blog?

I'm not sure how they decide this at Google, but they tell me this "...blog has characteristics of a spam blog..."

Interesting. The company also told me my adsense account could hurt their advertisers -- without divulging why they think that.

Romney update

Considering Gov. Romney bowed out of the Presidential race and I don't have the resources to take the fight to an out-of-state Federal Court, I let this go and I have been informed that the video
has been restored to the Governor's YouTube account.

Free Advertising

It's possible to get advertising that doesn't require a cash buy. Not that it's completely free, but more so than the "buy one get one free" and "after mail-in rebate" offers.

Many of the local half price deal offers put on by radio and TV stations allow you to exchange marketing for gift certificates. If you can afford to issue a few thousand in high-interest product, you can get some airtime without jumping through the traditional billing hoops.

But use caution here. Inasmuch as nothing's really free, this can be costly to you and your core customer base if such as offer would stretch your resources -- or you don't have the ability to perform as promised.

Romney-Mickelson video pulled from YouTube

click here to download

On August 2, 2007, Gov. Romney did a radio interview at the WHO Radio studio in Des Moines. I videotaped the 20 minute visit and made it available to the station for its web site.

A few hours later, Romney spokesman Tim Albrecht (Iowa communications director for the campaign) called me and insisted that the video be taken down immediately. His reasoning? At a point during a commercial break on the radio, the host uttered, "While we're off the air". Albrecht suggested what followed should have been treated as off-the-record and therefore the camcorder shouldn't have been recording or that portion shouldn't have been used.

Hardly off the record

The control room had men standing three abreast, plus the producer sitting at a console, who could all hear the off-air exchange. In the studio with the governor was at least two people with the campaign, plus the host and myself, again, listening to the conversation. No reasonable person could expect the governor's comments to be private in those circumstances.

Nevertheless, station management ordered the video pulled while it considered the matter. But before that meeting ever happened, I suspect Romney campaign staffers downloaded it and posted it on their own YouTube area (under the profile of "GovMittRomney"). I didn't give it to them and I controlled the only copies.

Not long after today's phone conversation with Ms. Biber, the campaign faxed a counter-claim to YouTube, who in turn forwarded it to me. In it, they claimed , "...the material was removed or disabled [from YouTube] as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material..." That statement substantially contrasts the conversation I had with Ms. Biber. I assured her the video was mine, that I shot it using my personal camcorder, using my tape.

How did the Romney campaign get the video?

What Biber didn't say may be telling. She didn't claim that the campaign owned the video and had the right to use it for their purposes, nor that they know who the rightful owner is, nor did she claim they sought and received permission to use it for their purposes.

So if the poster knows he doesn't own the video, why would he have the need to challenge ownership? He'd never have used it. How did the campaign come by the video in the first place? Why would they state for the record that my claim is based on a mistake when there are a number of first-hand witnesses to the facts involving the video? It seems reasonable that if the case were to be challenged in court, the campaign would lose. And what would forcing a court fight against a private citizen do to governor's bid for presidency? Wouldn't it make the governor look like a bully? The public might wonder why the governor would steal people's property?

But would they even have to win in court? The simple act of submitting a counter-claim may have a chilling affect on the original claim, so perhaps it's a safe bet that a private citizen from Iowa wouldn't have the resources to fight it in a federal court in Massachusetts. Biber did mention this as a probability.

In my opinion, forcing that kind of an action under these circumstances is a misuse of the courts. The campaign knows it doesn't own the video, so it's morally inept to challenge the original claim.

Chris Bernheisel - photos

Click to Play

Chris Bernheisel of Fremont, Nebraska entering the Ultimate Carrie Underwood Fan / American Idol contest. This version includes photos he submitted with his entry. Courtesy of kiss1075.com (Kiss 107 FM), Des Moines, Iowa.

Viacom v. YouTube

A win for YouTube changes the political climate in Google's favor, meaning new legislation would probably follow public favor, which the lawsuit would promote for the sharing of public domain content.

Furthermore, in simple terms, once aired, content is (or damn well ought to be) public domain. So it follows that YouTube's sharing model falls under fair use of such content.

The Radio Commission (today's FCC) established two things that matter here. First, that the public owns the airwaves; and 2, that the phone company couldn't possibly be able to monitor (and be accountable for) the content that flowed through its privately owned copper (although it uses public rights of way). This is what I believe is the underpinning of Safe Harbor; that you can't hold a media company accountable for everything its pass through its network. Safe Harbor may only be possible because it permits copyright owners to object to content if it owns it, and subsequently get it removed by the site owner. Lawmakers may have felt this would be a rarity, but it turned out to be the norm.

Ultimately, I think this will change the face of copyright law. Or at least we can hope so. Media companies have some catching up to do. Technology is allowing great advances in society and is hampered by current copyright law. Embrace technology. It's a good thing. Figure out, as Google has, to make money by working with the onward flow of technology. Greed and inflexibility are the only things stopping us.

Technology cuts down on Web registrations - USATODAY.com

So I'm a suit, I guess, and I write form letters. That's what people expect when they write to me and complain that we're doing something different. They might try to find a friendly ear (like one of our radio personalities) to touch first, but plenty of the nasty-grams make it past my desk, so I have to either ignore them or try to compose coherent answers. This one deals with the username/password issue lots of sites are requiring.

Is everybody as jaded as this?

[Dear Radio Personality],
I didn't want to receive a form letter from some [company] suit concerning the registration process required to listen to the online broadcast on [radio station], so I chose you to receive this message. Lucky you! I don't have to register to listen to [station] on my radio in my car or my home, so why do I have to do so [to] listen to it online? The service may still be financially free but it is no longer nuisance free. Don't we have enough nuisances in our daily lives already?

So I write:

Thanks for writing to tell us how you feel. I promise that I'm not wearing a suit and this isn't a form letter, so I hope it's OK that I reply to your note.

As a fellow listener, I understand your perspective about nuisances. Interesting how perspectives change on the other side of the glass.

While you say streaming online is free, somebody's paying for the hardware & software, staffing, creative licensing and bandwidth we all use when we listen online -- which is quite different than on-air listening; the more who listen, the higher the cost. To earn its keep, our streaming operations have to demonstrate to advertisers how many people listen and from where. So the sign-in process essentially helps us pay the costs. The alternative is doing what many other broadcasters are doing, which is charging listeners a subscription fee.

We're fortunate because the vast majority of our loyal listeners are pleased to spend the four extra seconds it takes to sign in and be counted because they like our programming and they value this new
convenience. I hope to count you as one of those listeners!

Thanks again for writing to us.

Now, perhaps something like the following story can help all of us!

Technology cuts down on Web registrations - USATODAY.com

Lost

Hello again!

I'd fallen off the face of the blog-o-sphere (do they still call it that?) until now this moment. Seems like, after the initial blogging blitz, things died off. Now, even your brother-in-law is blogging (and could barely use his laptop at Christmas).

I've been ambiguously refering to myself as the web guy for over a decade now, since the little stint at the copier place (which amounts to driving around town, flirting with the girls at offices). And now, for the second time, I'm leading the web initiative at a Clear Channel Radio plant in the midwest. Fun toys!

Web 2007: Who knew they'd start sticking pictures with voices?

I guess what comes around... I'd like to talk more about video on the web. Just a few years ago, I felt so strongly against plugging up the tubes with broadband content, especially video. But the quality of compressed media -- and the bandwidth that carries it -- is now only limited by where in the $50 to $100 range you want your connection to be.

Next time, let's chat about making you famous!

Regards,

Danny

Corporations go off a-podcasting - baltimoresun.com

Bridge Ratings, a California company that conducts radio-audience research, estimated last month that 4.8 million people have downloaded at least one podcast this year compared with 820,000 last year. About a fifth listen regularly.

Though many are using computers to do it, the rapidly growing portable market also expands the potential podcast reach. About 35 million households have portable music devices such as the iPod, according to JupiterResearch, which analyzes Internet and new-technology trends. That's double the number last year, and it will double again by 2010, the company predicts.">Corporations go off a-podcasting - baltimoresun.com: "Bridge Ratings, a California company that conducts radio-audience research, estimated last month that 4.8 million people have downloaded at least one podcast this year compared with 820,000 last year. About a fifth listen regularly.

Though many are using computers to do it, the rapidly growing portable market also expands the potential podcast reach. About 35 million households have portable music devices such as the iPod, according to JupiterResearch, which analyzes Internet and new-technology trends. That's double the number last year, and it will double again by 2010, the company predicts.