The New York Times has an article entitled What Netflix Could Teach Hollywood that is a good read on many levels, including consumer behaviour, new business models, and Hollywood thinking.

It illustrates the long tail theory, ie that there is money to be made selling/renting fewer copies of less popular material. In other words, there is consumer demand beyond the relatively small number of the most recent and popular releases available at traditional stores.

Also illustrates the web 2.0 concept of mass consumer input. Older or seemingly obscure titles can become popular based on consumer ratings and recomendations.

Some claim that the Netflix model is ultimately doomed because the mailing of physical DVD’s will rapidly be supplanted by downloads and content on demand. Of course Netflix is working on providing that form of distribution itself. The other impediment to that in the short term is that Hollywood has granted exclusive rights to much of its digital content to TV networks, thus making mass downloading for the sheer number of titles available from Netflix (which, after all, is one important key to its success), difficult if not impossible in the short term. Another example of short term and misplaced thinking by the entertainment industry.

Read the New York Times article

The blogsphere is buzzing about a demand letter sent by O’Reilly saying another party can’t use “web 2.0″ for a conference, because they have trade-marked it for conference use.

I might as well add my 2 cents worth (or should that be 2.0 cents worth?)

This is one of those cases where legal reasoning gets in the way of business judgement.

At best “web 2.0″ is a weak trade-mark, in that it is arguably descriptive, and is not distinctive.

One irony is that they perhaps have been a victim of their own success. They did such a good job of using, promoting and publicising the term web 2.0, that it has become generic.

Another irony is that web 2.0 is all about collaboration and sharing. Hardly collaborative if you won’t even let others use the term!

The best trade-marks are memorable and distinctive, not descriptive.

In my view, this one is not worth protecting at this point from a business perspective.

A techmeme post has a lot of good commentary on this.

Also take a look at Rob Hyndman’s thoughts which are noteworthy in that he was one of the organizers of the recent Mesh web 2.0 conference in Toronto.

Read the Techmeme posts

Read Rob’s post

Read the actual US Web 2.0 TM registration

Read the proposed Canadian Web 2.0 TM application

Slashdot points to a Newsweek article that talks about police solving crimes using evidence from MySpace. Seems that the criminals have boasted about their crimes, or even posted video of themselves in the act.

Read the Newsweek article

The agenda for the upcoming Mesh Web 2.0 conference is now available.

Looks like some interesting discussions with some influential and innovative people. The only problem is how to choose between the alternate sessions!

Look at the agenda

This looks like it will be an interesting conference, with some first rate speakers. It has been organized by a group of journalists, entrepreneurs, and fellow legal blogger, Rob Hyndman.

It will be in Toronto May 15 and 16th. More information about the conference and registration is available on its web site.

go to the Mesh web site

Techdirt has a post about an overreaction by a school to a Myspace post by a student. Seems that in addition to suspending the student who posted inappropriate material, they also suspended 20 others who just looked at it.

This kind of over-reaction seems to happen frequently. Often when a wrong is perceived – often legitimately – the reaction goes too far or backfires. Sometimes when people use something new they do things that they would never think of doing before, such as bloggers that disclose confidential information.

Perhaps we need a Department of Common Sense Analysis - like the TBS Department of Humor Analysis - where people could call in and get objective advice. (I might be prepared to do that for a modest fee.)

I suppose the biggest flaw is that those that need it most won’t think to call. I wonder if there is a Web 2.0 business model in here somehwere?

Read the Techdirt post

Look at the TBS Department of Humour Analysis

The recent article I wrote about My Space entitled “Internet privacy doesn’t exist” received a lot of attention, including a mention on Techdirt.

Wired has a couple of articles that help put My Space in perspective, including a guide for parents. Like many things, My Space is not inherently evil – its about using some common sense and thinking through the ramifications.

While its right to think these things through, its important to put things in context. For example, many years ago when telecommuting was being considered, some businesses had a huge list of concerns. The risks were legitimate things to think about – but many of those risks were no greater than if the person was in their office.

Read the Wired guide article

Read a Wired article about the My Space backlash

Read my article

Read the Techdirt post about my article

David Canton – For the London Free Press – February 18, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Whether you are applying for a job, running for office or just meeting new people, others are increasingly using the Internet to check you out.

While that can be a valuable tool for potential employers, for example, it can have negative consequences on your success if those searches reveal unflattering or contrary information.

In addition to Googling a person, sites have been created for the purpose of profiling individuals and businesses. Try putting your own name or the name of someone you know in zoominfo.com and see what comes up.

At the same time, more people are using sites such as Flickr.com to post personal photos and del.icio.us to post personal web links.

The explosion of digital photography has resulted in a rapidly increasing number of photographs online. People typically expect pictures to be viewed by friends and family, but they are often available for anyone to see.

Social networking sites such as Facebook.com and MySpace.com or one’s own blog or comments left on other blogs leave trails of personal information.

So, the tools to find information are becoming more sophisticated and we are putting more information about ourselves on the web, not to mention information others might post about us.

We often forget this information is there for anyone to find at any time. That snarky remark or embarrassing photo that seems amusing at the time may become a real problem when future employers check you out.

Online tools and sites also mean anyone can search the Internet to verify information provided by job-seekers, people applying for credit or running for office.

This makes it easier to find discrepancies or experiences that were intentionally omitted.

It will become interesting during the next few years when those who routinely use these kinds of sites start running for public office. All kinds of potentially embarrassing information will be readily available to opponents.

While these various ways to interact with others may seem innocuous at the time, they can come back to haunt later. People often treat these kinds of sites like a personal conversation with a few close friends, but the reality is they are having that conversation with the world and it is preserved forever.

Even if the information is restricted so only a chosen few can access it — any of those chosen few can make it public.

So, what can we do about this?

To a great extent, we lose control of information we post online. We need to think before we put anything online. Assume the entire world will be able to view that information forever.

Ask yourself if you would care if others could find that when you apply for a job, run for office or volunteer at your favourite charity.

David Canton – for the London Free Press – January 28, 2006

Read this on Canoe

Wikipedia.org is an online encyclopedia. It differs from traditional encyclopedias in that the entries are created by users rather than corporate writers and editors.

So, how can something created by so many people, in the absence of a central authority, ever be accurate?

A study recently published in the British journal Nature concluded that Wikipedia has a level of accuracy only slightly lower than that of Encyclopedia Britannica. It showed that, on average, there are 2.92 mistakes per article for Encyclopedia Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was launched in January 2001. Founders Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger wanted to create “an international collaborative free-content encyclopedia on the Internet” where the content was created by the users. To accomplish this, they decided to use “wiki” technology.

Wiki technology is the brainchild of Ward Cunningham. Cunningham launched the first wiki based site, the WikiWikiWeb on March 25, 1995. Wiki means “quick” in Hawaiian. As for the wiki technology, Cunningham says, “I chose wiki-wiki as an alliterative substitute for ‘quick’ and, thereby, avoided naming this stuff quick-web.”

Many web-based reference sites now use this technology.

So what exactly is “wiki technology”? Basically, it’s a simpler way of creating HTML pages combined with a recording system that tracks each individual change. This allows a page to be constantly updated while preserving the previous versions.

It is this concept that lies at the heart of wikipedia. It is also Wikipedia’s greatest weakness. An enormous amount of trust must be placed in Wikipedia’s users. And we all know how trustworthy the Internet can be.

This trust was put to the test in 2005.

In May, the biography of John Siegenthaler Sr. was edited to suggest that he had been involved in the Kennedy assassinations. The edits were posted by an individual who was playing a prank on a co-worker. There was no truth in the allegations and Siegenthaler — who had worked on Robert Kennedy’s campaign — was outspoken in his desire to have the entry removed. However, it wasn’t until September that the entry was corrected.

In December, it was reported that Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ and key player in the podcasting phenomenon, had anonymously edited the Wikipedia entry on podcasting. Certain paragraphs were reworded to enhance Curry’s role and diminish that of other key developers of the technology.

When he was confronted with this information, Curry first claimed that he was unfamiliar with the Wikipedia system of editing and later apologized for making the edits.

Also in December, reports emerged that Wikipedia founder Wales had edited his own bio roughly 18 times. The edits had the effect of downplaying the contribution of Sanger, with whom Wales had had a falling out.

When he was asked about the edits, Wales insisted that they were only meant to provide a more rounded picture of the early days of Wikipedia and to correct some factual errors.

With all of this controversy, it is natural that people began to question the general accuracy of Wikipedia. The release of the accuracy study was certainly helpful to Wikipedia.

To address this issue, Wikipedia has implemented a time-delay system, where popular entries are reviewed before being posted to the website. It will be interesting to see if this provides the proper balance to end up with the right kind and amount of editorial control — without requiring the kind of central gatekeeping that would render the concept useless.

For anyone still unsure what Web 2.0 is all about, take a look at ZDNet’s list.

Read the ZDNet list

Read an earlier article of mine on Web 2.0