Stephen Lendman
Saturday, July 09, 2011
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/07/appeals-court-rejects-more-media.html
In six editions of "The Media Monopoly" and subsequent update titled, "The New Media Monopoly," Ben Bagdikian explained how deregulation let major media corporations consolidate to oligopoly size.
Since 1983, the number of corporations owning most newspapers, magazines, book publishers, recorded music, movie studios, television and radio stations shrunk from 50 to a handful, including Time-Warner, Disney, News Corp., Viacom, Comcast, and Bertelsmann AG.
In 1996, Telecommunications Act backers claimed it would increase competition, lower prices, and improve service. In fact, TV station ownership limits were raised to let broadcast giants own twice as many local stations as before, charge what they wished, and dismiss public concerns in the process.
For radio, all national ownership limits were removed, and, in large urban areas, one company could own up to eight stations in a major market. In smaller ones, two companies could own them all.
The bill also consigned new digital television broadcast spectrum space only to current TV station owners, and let cable companies increase their local monopoly positions. Media and telecom giants were clear winners. Consumers lost out.
Yet in October 2007, FCC chairman Kevin Martin proposed lifting the 1975 media cross-ownership rule, forbidding one company from owning a newspaper and television or radio station in the same city even though some conglomerates already did like News Corp. In November, he amended his plan to allow cross ownership only in large markets where competition already exists, with deceptive loopholes through waivers to permit it anywhere.
In 2003, FCC Michael Powell also tried loosening ownership rules, despite opponents saying relaxing them would further stifle debate, inhibit new ideas, weaken diversity, and more greatly consolidate oligopoly power.
In June 2004, the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled favorably for the Media Access Project (MAP) in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, ordering the agency to reconsider its ill-advised ownership rule changes that included:
-- ending cross-ownership restrictions that prohibits a company from owning a newspaper and TV or radio station in the same city;
-- eliminating the previous ban on radio/TV cross-ownership, and replacing both types with a single set of cross-media limits;
-- a dodgy "diversity index" based on assigning varying weights to different media to determine if markets retained enough. It not, ownership limits would be restricted, but the formula proposed was deceptive and dishonest, including for smaller markets; and
-- redefining National Market Share to let ownership ceilings rise unfairly.
In fact, the public overwhelmingly wants more, not less consolidation. On July 7, an important victory was won when the same Third Circuit Court issued its long-awaited verdict, throwing out proposed FCC rules changes.
The Prometheus Radio Project (PRP) "builds participatory radio as a tool for social justice organizing and a voice for community expression. (It) advocate(s) for a more just media system, and help(s) grassroots organizations build communications infrastructure to strengthen their communities and movements."
PRP explained the court decision on its web site, accessed through the following link:
http://www.prometheusradio.org/node/2532
Headlining "Federal Court Rejects Media Consolidation in Prometheus vs. FCC," it hailed PRP's "second historic victory" this year, saying:
The Third Circuit Court rejected FCC rules changes "that would have allowed one company to own a newspaper and broadcast stations in the same market," despite some already doing it.
Other FCC broadcast ownership limits were also upheld, as well as agreement that proposed changes failed to consider how women and minorities would be affected.
Media Access Project's PRP attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman hailed the decision, saying:
"We won on almost every point. This decision is a vindication of the public's right to have a diverse media environment," despite how little now exists, except through alternative media sources, especially online.
On January 4, PRP won another victory when the Community Radio Act became law, permitting thousands of new stations nationally. Praising the decision, PRP's Policy Director Brandy Doyle said:
"Media matters. Thousands of people fought to pass the (law), and thousands more spoke out loudly when the FCC tried to further consolidate broadcast media." However, despite important victories, "we must continue to push the FCC to do the right thing for community radio."
On July 12, ahead of implementing the Local Community Radio Act, "the FCC will again propose new rules." Key is ensuring low-power urban FM community radio stations channel space as Congress mandated.
"Commercial broadcasters must share the airwaves with the urban churches, schools, and non-profits who have waited more than a decade to serve their communities with radio."
On July 7, a Free Press.net press release also hailed the court ruling. Corie Wright (who argued with Schwartzman for PRP) called it:
"a sweeping victory for the public interest. In rejecting the arguments of the industry and exposing the FCC's failures, the court wisely concluded that (media) competition....not more concentration will provide Americans with the local news and information they need and want."
Nonetheless, she said dominant media giants still lobby hard for rules changes, very much against the public interest that won this battle but can't relax.
This win, however, prevented one company from owning a city's dominant newspaper, eight radio stations, three television stations, and a major cable operation, shutting out most other voices entirely.
Distorted Major Media Coverage
On July 7, New York Times writer Bill Carter headlined, "Court Overturns FCC Cross-Ownership Rule," downplaying the decision's importance, saying:
"In a narrow ruling unlikely to have an immediate effect on current broadcasters," the court "did not rule on the merits" of FCC's proposed changes. "Instead, (it) said that the FCC had failed to allow sufficient time for official notice and public comment on them," distorting what, in fact, happened in typical Times fashion, suppressing vital information from its readers.
Wall Street Journal writer Amy Schatz was no better, headlining, "Appeals Court Bumps Up Pressure to Overhaul Media-Ownership Rule," unsurprisingly siding with media giants while ignoring the decision's importance.
Bloomberg's Sophia Pearson and Todd Shields also offered a distorted, biased account, headlining, "FCC's Rules on Media Cross-Ownership Are Vacated by Federal Appeals Court," saying:
The court ruled that the FCC "failed to provide adequate notice," downplaying the decision's importance like The Times, including by quoting Newspaper Association of America president John Sturm calling the decision "very disappointing. We're back to the original rule that was passed in 1975. It strains credulity to understand why that is."
In fact, following daily major print and broadcast media explains clearly why less (lots less), not more, concentration is needed.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
Showing posts with label Viacom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Viacom. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sunday, May 16, 2010
From Shas to Hamas: The group behind the ‘South Park’ controversy
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5866.shtml
From Shas to Hamas: The group behind the ‘South Park’ controversy
By Maidhc Ó Cathail
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 12, 2010
Muslims just can’t seem to take a joke. Or at least that’s what some would have you believe.
Like the contrived Danish cartoon controversy, the much-hyped Times Square car bomb incident provided an ideal opportunity for those who seek to make Islam look bad in the eyes of the world.
Before the arrest of Faisal “The Fizzler” Shahzad tied this latest botched terror plot to the Pakistani Taliban, some initial news reports suggested that it might have been the work of an Islamist group with a poor sense of humor -- and an even poorer sense of direction. The fact that the fertilizer-laden SUV was parked “about one block from” Viacom headquarters led the Washington Post’s pro-Israel staff writers Jerry Markon and Anne Kornblut to speculate that it may have been retribution for a satire on the Prophet Mohammed shown on one of Viacom’s TV networks.
After Comedy Central aired an episode of the satirical cartoon South Park in April that depicted the prophet in a bear costume, its creators received veiled death threats from a New York-based group called Revolution Muslim. The threats were issued on the group’s Web site by Zachary Adam Chesser, who now goes by the name Abu Talhah al-Amrikee.
Within days of the posting on the obscure Web site, Joshua Rhett Miller of FoxNews.com did a story on it, in which he interviewed Chesser. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims,” the recent convert told Fox. “It’s just the reality.”
A few days later, Miller did a profile of Chesser, in which he described the 20-year-old as “the boy next door” with a “dark side.” Quoting an anonymous high school classmate, Miller informed Fox readers that Chesser -- prior to his career as a humorless fundamentalist Muslim -- was a “loner . . . who frequently drew pictures of Satanic figures in his notebooks.”
The hype over South Park was not the first time, however, that Rupert Murdoch’s stridently pro-Israel media had publicized Revolution Muslim’s provocations.
On March 26, 2008, FoxNews.com trumpeted the group’s puerile puppet show mocking the 2002 beheading of a Jewish American journalist in Pakistan. “I could care less about Daniel Pearl,” group founder Yousef al-Khattab said in an interview with Fox. “I’m happy to see that he’s gone.”
In an Oct. 13, 2009, piece, Joshua Rhett Miller drew attention to a post by al-Khattab which asked Allah to murder the Jews and urged Muslims to “throw liquid drain cleaner in their faces.” In yet another interview with Miller, al-Khattab claimed that these outlandish statements reflected the “prayer of every true Muslim.”
On Nov. 8, 2009, Fox reported on Revolution Muslim’s tribute to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist charged with the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. This time it was another one of Murdoch’s newspapers, the New York Post, which interviewed al-Khattab after he wrote, “An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack. Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you.”
In one of his articles, Joshua Rhett Miller mentioned, almost in passing, that the provocative al-Khattab is “an American-born Jew formerly known as Joseph Cohen who converted to Islam after attending an Orthodox rabbinical school.” An insignificant detail?
The implausible story of Cohen’s implausible conversion was first told, it seems, in a most interesting venue: Israel’s leading right-wing English newspaper. Cohen, who moved with his wife and family from Brooklyn to Israel in 1998, was one of three people interviewed for a Nov. 25, 2005, Jerusalem Post feature on the spread of Islam among Israeli immigrants titled, perhaps ironically, “True Believers.”
While living in Netivot -- the only town in Israel without a public high school due to the extreme influence there of the ultra-Orthodox Haredim -- Cohen said he became disillusioned with Israeli secularism. “At that time I met this person on the Internet, a sheikh from UAE [United Arab Emirates], whom I met later on, and we started chatting and talking on the ’net,” Cohen told the Jerusalem Post. After two years of “theological dialogue” in a Jewish chatroom with the persuasive sheikh, Cohen was transformed from being a supporter of Shas -- the ultra-racist political party of Mizrahi Haredi Jews -- to a “sudden admirer of al-Qaeda and Hamas.”
Seemingly unable to interest “weak” Palestinian Muslims in his newly acquired brand of “pure” Islam, Cohen returned to New York to launch his online jihad for “the creation of an Islamic caliphate which will rule the world.”
Having not so long ago believed that Jews had a God-given right to Palestine, Cohen is now saying that Muslims should rule the world. The zeal of the converted? Perhaps.
But it also conveniently confirms the Islamophobic propaganda of the likes of Daniel Pipes who try to scare Americans into fighting Israel’s wars with dire warnings that the Muslims are coming.
Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.
From Shas to Hamas: The group behind the ‘South Park’ controversy
By Maidhc Ó Cathail
Online Journal Contributing Writer
May 12, 2010
Muslims just can’t seem to take a joke. Or at least that’s what some would have you believe.
Like the contrived Danish cartoon controversy, the much-hyped Times Square car bomb incident provided an ideal opportunity for those who seek to make Islam look bad in the eyes of the world.
Before the arrest of Faisal “The Fizzler” Shahzad tied this latest botched terror plot to the Pakistani Taliban, some initial news reports suggested that it might have been the work of an Islamist group with a poor sense of humor -- and an even poorer sense of direction. The fact that the fertilizer-laden SUV was parked “about one block from” Viacom headquarters led the Washington Post’s pro-Israel staff writers Jerry Markon and Anne Kornblut to speculate that it may have been retribution for a satire on the Prophet Mohammed shown on one of Viacom’s TV networks.
After Comedy Central aired an episode of the satirical cartoon South Park in April that depicted the prophet in a bear costume, its creators received veiled death threats from a New York-based group called Revolution Muslim. The threats were issued on the group’s Web site by Zachary Adam Chesser, who now goes by the name Abu Talhah al-Amrikee.
Within days of the posting on the obscure Web site, Joshua Rhett Miller of FoxNews.com did a story on it, in which he interviewed Chesser. “They’re going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims,” the recent convert told Fox. “It’s just the reality.”
A few days later, Miller did a profile of Chesser, in which he described the 20-year-old as “the boy next door” with a “dark side.” Quoting an anonymous high school classmate, Miller informed Fox readers that Chesser -- prior to his career as a humorless fundamentalist Muslim -- was a “loner . . . who frequently drew pictures of Satanic figures in his notebooks.”
The hype over South Park was not the first time, however, that Rupert Murdoch’s stridently pro-Israel media had publicized Revolution Muslim’s provocations.
On March 26, 2008, FoxNews.com trumpeted the group’s puerile puppet show mocking the 2002 beheading of a Jewish American journalist in Pakistan. “I could care less about Daniel Pearl,” group founder Yousef al-Khattab said in an interview with Fox. “I’m happy to see that he’s gone.”
In an Oct. 13, 2009, piece, Joshua Rhett Miller drew attention to a post by al-Khattab which asked Allah to murder the Jews and urged Muslims to “throw liquid drain cleaner in their faces.” In yet another interview with Miller, al-Khattab claimed that these outlandish statements reflected the “prayer of every true Muslim.”
On Nov. 8, 2009, Fox reported on Revolution Muslim’s tribute to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist charged with the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. This time it was another one of Murdoch’s newspapers, the New York Post, which interviewed al-Khattab after he wrote, “An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack. Get well soon Major Nidal. We love you.”
In one of his articles, Joshua Rhett Miller mentioned, almost in passing, that the provocative al-Khattab is “an American-born Jew formerly known as Joseph Cohen who converted to Islam after attending an Orthodox rabbinical school.” An insignificant detail?
The implausible story of Cohen’s implausible conversion was first told, it seems, in a most interesting venue: Israel’s leading right-wing English newspaper. Cohen, who moved with his wife and family from Brooklyn to Israel in 1998, was one of three people interviewed for a Nov. 25, 2005, Jerusalem Post feature on the spread of Islam among Israeli immigrants titled, perhaps ironically, “True Believers.”
While living in Netivot -- the only town in Israel without a public high school due to the extreme influence there of the ultra-Orthodox Haredim -- Cohen said he became disillusioned with Israeli secularism. “At that time I met this person on the Internet, a sheikh from UAE [United Arab Emirates], whom I met later on, and we started chatting and talking on the ’net,” Cohen told the Jerusalem Post. After two years of “theological dialogue” in a Jewish chatroom with the persuasive sheikh, Cohen was transformed from being a supporter of Shas -- the ultra-racist political party of Mizrahi Haredi Jews -- to a “sudden admirer of al-Qaeda and Hamas.”
Seemingly unable to interest “weak” Palestinian Muslims in his newly acquired brand of “pure” Islam, Cohen returned to New York to launch his online jihad for “the creation of an Islamic caliphate which will rule the world.”
Having not so long ago believed that Jews had a God-given right to Palestine, Cohen is now saying that Muslims should rule the world. The zeal of the converted? Perhaps.
But it also conveniently confirms the Islamophobic propaganda of the likes of Daniel Pipes who try to scare Americans into fighting Israel’s wars with dire warnings that the Muslims are coming.
Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
YouTube law fight 'threatens net'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7420955.stm
YouTube law fight 'threatens net'
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.
Google's claim follows Viacom's move to sue the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site.
Viacom says it has identified 150,000 unauthorised clips on YouTube.
In court documents Google's lawyers say the action "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the web.
The search giant's legal team also maintained that YouTube had been faithful to the requirements of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that they responded properly to claims of infringement.
In papers submitted to a Manhattan court, Google said it and YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".
Viacom disagreed that either firm had lived up to that standard and said that they had done "little or nothing" to stop infringement.
Abuse
In a rewritten lawsuit filed last month, Viacom claimed YouTube consistently allowed unauthorised copies of popular television programming and movies to be posted on its website and viewed tens of thousands of times.
It said it had identified more than 150,000 such abuses which included clips from shows such as South Park, SpongeBob SquarePants and MTV Unplugged.
The company says the infringement also included the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times".
Viacom, which is asking for damages for the unauthorised viewing of its programming, said its tally represented only a fraction of the content on YouTube that violates its copyrights.
"The availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants' business plan," Viacom said.
Viacom originally started legal action last year and filed an amended version last month. Earlier this month Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone told Dow Jones: "When we filed this lawsuit, we not only served our own interests, we served the interests of everyone who owns copyrights they want protected."
He added: "We cannot tolerate any form of piracy by anyone, including YouTube...they cannot get away with stealing our products."
For its part, Google said the only way the legal action would be resolved was in court.
Google's vice president of content partnerships David Eun has said: "We're going all the way to the Supreme Court. We've been very clear about it."
After the legal action was first started, YouTube launched an anti-piracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.
YouTube law fight 'threatens net'
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
A one billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube threatens internet freedom, according to its owner Google.
Google's claim follows Viacom's move to sue the video sharing service for its inability to keep copyrighted material off its site.
Viacom says it has identified 150,000 unauthorised clips on YouTube.
In court documents Google's lawyers say the action "threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information" over the web.
The search giant's legal team also maintained that YouTube had been faithful to the requirements of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act and that they responded properly to claims of infringement.
In papers submitted to a Manhattan court, Google said it and YouTube "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works".
Viacom disagreed that either firm had lived up to that standard and said that they had done "little or nothing" to stop infringement.
Abuse
In a rewritten lawsuit filed last month, Viacom claimed YouTube consistently allowed unauthorised copies of popular television programming and movies to be posted on its website and viewed tens of thousands of times.
It said it had identified more than 150,000 such abuses which included clips from shows such as South Park, SpongeBob SquarePants and MTV Unplugged.
The company says the infringement also included the documentary An Inconvenient Truth which had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times".
Viacom, which is asking for damages for the unauthorised viewing of its programming, said its tally represented only a fraction of the content on YouTube that violates its copyrights.
"The availability on the YouTube site of a vast library of the copyrighted works of plaintiffs and others is the cornerstone of defendants' business plan," Viacom said.
Viacom originally started legal action last year and filed an amended version last month. Earlier this month Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone told Dow Jones: "When we filed this lawsuit, we not only served our own interests, we served the interests of everyone who owns copyrights they want protected."
He added: "We cannot tolerate any form of piracy by anyone, including YouTube...they cannot get away with stealing our products."
For its part, Google said the only way the legal action would be resolved was in court.
Google's vice president of content partnerships David Eun has said: "We're going all the way to the Supreme Court. We've been very clear about it."
After the legal action was first started, YouTube launched an anti-piracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.
Friday, March 28, 2008
'South Park' site offers every episode
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117982893.html
Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
'South Park' site offers every episode
Parker, Stone give fans a free look
By SAM THIELMAN
After years of encouraging their fans to share "South Park," creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have set up a viable alternative to the mass YouTube-based distribution of popular clips from the hit show: They're just going to give the whole thing away on SouthParkStudios.com.
"We got really sick of having to download our own show illegally all the time, so we gave ourselves a legal alternative," the duo quipped in a statement.
The site offers every "South Park" episode including the current one, which stays live for a week after its airdate and then goes dark for the rest of the month, at which point it is added to the site's back catalog.
The streaming episodes run without ad breaks, but a spokeswoman for Comedy Central said the full episodes would eventually include advertising. SouthParkStudios.com also hosts embeddable clips. Launch sponsors for the venture are Toyota and Virgin.
It's a good time for Parker and Stone to distance themselves from the YouTube community given Comedy Central parent Viacom's protracted lawsuit against the Web-based video distrib, which features clips from the show.
Comedy Central said the site has already generated more than 3 million page visitors and more than 1 million streams of full episodes since it debuted with no fanfare last week.
Links posted in this story: Comedy Central, Matt Stone, Trey Parker
Tue., Mar. 25, 2008
'South Park' site offers every episode
Parker, Stone give fans a free look
By SAM THIELMAN
After years of encouraging their fans to share "South Park," creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have set up a viable alternative to the mass YouTube-based distribution of popular clips from the hit show: They're just going to give the whole thing away on SouthParkStudios.com.
"We got really sick of having to download our own show illegally all the time, so we gave ourselves a legal alternative," the duo quipped in a statement.
The site offers every "South Park" episode including the current one, which stays live for a week after its airdate and then goes dark for the rest of the month, at which point it is added to the site's back catalog.
The streaming episodes run without ad breaks, but a spokeswoman for Comedy Central said the full episodes would eventually include advertising. SouthParkStudios.com also hosts embeddable clips. Launch sponsors for the venture are Toyota and Virgin.
It's a good time for Parker and Stone to distance themselves from the YouTube community given Comedy Central parent Viacom's protracted lawsuit against the Web-based video distrib, which features clips from the show.
Comedy Central said the site has already generated more than 3 million page visitors and more than 1 million streams of full episodes since it debuted with no fanfare last week.
Links posted in this story: Comedy Central, Matt Stone, Trey Parker
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Paramount in HD-DVD blow
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea637496-bd8d-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac.html
Paramount in HD-DVD blow
By Matthew Garrahan and Mariko Sanchanta in Las Vegas
Published: January 8 2008
Paramount is poised to drop its support of HD-DVD following Warner Brothers' recent backing of Sony's Blu-ray technology, in a move that could sound the death knell of HD-DVD and bring the home entertainment format war to a definitive end.
Paramount and DreamWorks Animation, which makes the Shrek films, came out in support of HD-DVD last summer, joining General Electric's Universal Studios as the main backers of the Toshiba format.
However, Paramount, which is owned by Viacom, is understood to have a clause in its contract with the HD-DVD camp that would allow it to switch sides in the event of Warner backing Blu-ray, according to people familiar with the situation.
Paramount is set to have a bumper 2008 with several likely blockbusters, including the latest instalment in the Indiana Jones franchise, slated for release.
Paramount joining the Blu-ray camp would leave HD-DVD likely to suffer the same fate as Sony's now obsolete Betamax video technology, which lost out to VHS in a similar format war in the 1980s.
Warner's decision last week to throw its weight behind Blu-ray saw it join Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as backers of the Sony format.
The Warner move gives Blu-ray about 70 per cent of Hollywood's output, although the format's grip on film content will increase further when Paramount comes aboard.
It is unclear whether DreamWorks Animation has the same get-out clause in its contract with the HD-DVD camp. However, Paramount and DreamWorks have a close relationship, with Paramount distributing DreamWorks Animation films.
The two companies also signed their HD-DVD contracts at the same time.
Meanwhile, Universal has declined to comment on its next- generation DVD plans following the Warner move.
Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, yesterday held out an olive branch to its rival in the next-generation DVD format wars following Warner's decision to back Blu-ray.
Sir Howard said the company would be "open to dialogue" with the rival high-definition HD-DVD camp to "grow the market". The move came as new figures showed that Blu-ray had opened up a decisive lead over the rival home entertainment format.
Sir Howard said: "We are not going to push people around. We'll talk to anyone . . . we have a lot of work to do to grow the market. We'll be systematic and open to dialogue at all times."
He added that Sony still had "a lot of work" to do to get Blu-ray "widely accepted" among American consumers.
Paramount in HD-DVD blow
By Matthew Garrahan and Mariko Sanchanta in Las Vegas
Published: January 8 2008
Paramount is poised to drop its support of HD-DVD following Warner Brothers' recent backing of Sony's Blu-ray technology, in a move that could sound the death knell of HD-DVD and bring the home entertainment format war to a definitive end.
Paramount and DreamWorks Animation, which makes the Shrek films, came out in support of HD-DVD last summer, joining General Electric's Universal Studios as the main backers of the Toshiba format.
However, Paramount, which is owned by Viacom, is understood to have a clause in its contract with the HD-DVD camp that would allow it to switch sides in the event of Warner backing Blu-ray, according to people familiar with the situation.
Paramount is set to have a bumper 2008 with several likely blockbusters, including the latest instalment in the Indiana Jones franchise, slated for release.
Paramount joining the Blu-ray camp would leave HD-DVD likely to suffer the same fate as Sony's now obsolete Betamax video technology, which lost out to VHS in a similar format war in the 1980s.
Warner's decision last week to throw its weight behind Blu-ray saw it join Walt Disney, 20th Century Fox and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as backers of the Sony format.
The Warner move gives Blu-ray about 70 per cent of Hollywood's output, although the format's grip on film content will increase further when Paramount comes aboard.
It is unclear whether DreamWorks Animation has the same get-out clause in its contract with the HD-DVD camp. However, Paramount and DreamWorks have a close relationship, with Paramount distributing DreamWorks Animation films.
The two companies also signed their HD-DVD contracts at the same time.
Meanwhile, Universal has declined to comment on its next- generation DVD plans following the Warner move.
Sir Howard Stringer, chief executive of Sony, yesterday held out an olive branch to its rival in the next-generation DVD format wars following Warner's decision to back Blu-ray.
Sir Howard said the company would be "open to dialogue" with the rival high-definition HD-DVD camp to "grow the market". The move came as new figures showed that Blu-ray had opened up a decisive lead over the rival home entertainment format.
Sir Howard said: "We are not going to push people around. We'll talk to anyone . . . we have a lot of work to do to grow the market. We'll be systematic and open to dialogue at all times."
He added that Sony still had "a lot of work" to do to get Blu-ray "widely accepted" among American consumers.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Who on Earth Would Want to Buy Yahoo?
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/who-on-earth-wo.html
Who on Earth Would Want to Buy Yahoo?
By Betsy Schiffman
January 02, 2008
While pundits yap away about how Yahoo is fresh acquisition meat, we find it hard to believe. The company is pretty pricey, with a market cap of roughly $33.5 billion, and the number of businesses that could actually swing it is minuscule.
We understand why internet industry watchers think Yahoo is in play. At the very least, it's in flux. Former CEO Terry Semel was ousted last spring, management is fleeing the scene in droves, and the stock is drifting.
But even if Yahoo's business has been dwarfed by Google, its revenue is still growing (it grew by about 12 percent in the third quarter); and more importantly, co-founders David Filo and Jerry Yang, who own roughly 10 percent of the company, are dead set on executing on a turnaround plan.
The bigger question is who would want Yahoo? The major media players (Time Warner, News Corp., Viacom) are desperate to build out their online media businesses, but probably not to the tune of $33.5 billion. We asked a slew of analysts to weigh in on the odds of potential acquirers, and here's what they had to say:
NBC - The network, which is owned by conglomerate General Electric, has flailed on the web over the last decade, and while it needs to grow its online business, at least one analyst, who asked not to be named, thinks GE is more likely to sell NBC in the next couple years than it is to grow the business. The upshot? The chances that GE would have any interest in buying Yahoo are slim to none.
Microsoft - It just won't die: For at least a year, gossipers keep rehashing the same old rumor that Microsoft is in talks to buy Yahoo. While the company is one of the few businesses positioned to do it (Microsoft has plenty of cash on hand, a rich market cap, and would have no problem raising additional financing) such a deal would be a total disaster for Microsoft, according to Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry. "Microsoft has all the pieces it needs to build its Live brand. A Yahoo acquisition will disrupt Microsoft's execution, confuse customers, and dilute -- without repair -- Microsoft's brand," Chowdhry says. "The Live brand is youthful, while Yahoo resonates as an internet site for old people."
News Corp. - Rupert Murdoch is in it to win it, and he's willing to spend exorbitant sums of money to own the internet (as evidenced by his $580 million acquisition of MySpace). Still, an outright acquisition of Yahoo isn't really his style. "I think Rupert's been willing to take minority stakes in companies where he can take control," says Pali Research analyst Richard Greenberg. "I'm skeptical of the portal business in general and with the MySpace acquisition, I think News Corp. has some big opportunities to attack portals' core business."
Time Warner - It's been eight years since AOL announced its bid to buy Time Warner in a $165 billion deal. Since then, the AOL business has deteriorated dramatically, and Time Warner has even toyed with the idea of spinning it off. "We've seen how the AOL Time Warner merger just didn't work," says Greg Gorbatenko, an analyst with Jackson Securities. "Now AOL's dragging Time Warner down. If you were to introduce Yahoo into the mix, it would be like . . . you gotta be kidding me!"
Viacom - Although Viacom is expected to shop around for acquisitions this year, Yahoo is probably not on the shopping list. "We would expect Viacom to be more active in buying online assets in 2008, but these acquisitions would be small-to-medium moderately sized deals. A large acquisition, the size of Yahoo, would surprise us," says Laura Martin, Soleil-Media Metrics analyst. "It's more important for Viacom to get their core business in shape, and resolve issues with DreamWorks."
We're not saying a deal won't happen -- anything is possible -- but it seems a little far fetched to us.
Who on Earth Would Want to Buy Yahoo?
By Betsy Schiffman
January 02, 2008
While pundits yap away about how Yahoo is fresh acquisition meat, we find it hard to believe. The company is pretty pricey, with a market cap of roughly $33.5 billion, and the number of businesses that could actually swing it is minuscule.
We understand why internet industry watchers think Yahoo is in play. At the very least, it's in flux. Former CEO Terry Semel was ousted last spring, management is fleeing the scene in droves, and the stock is drifting.
But even if Yahoo's business has been dwarfed by Google, its revenue is still growing (it grew by about 12 percent in the third quarter); and more importantly, co-founders David Filo and Jerry Yang, who own roughly 10 percent of the company, are dead set on executing on a turnaround plan.
The bigger question is who would want Yahoo? The major media players (Time Warner, News Corp., Viacom) are desperate to build out their online media businesses, but probably not to the tune of $33.5 billion. We asked a slew of analysts to weigh in on the odds of potential acquirers, and here's what they had to say:
NBC - The network, which is owned by conglomerate General Electric, has flailed on the web over the last decade, and while it needs to grow its online business, at least one analyst, who asked not to be named, thinks GE is more likely to sell NBC in the next couple years than it is to grow the business. The upshot? The chances that GE would have any interest in buying Yahoo are slim to none.
Microsoft - It just won't die: For at least a year, gossipers keep rehashing the same old rumor that Microsoft is in talks to buy Yahoo. While the company is one of the few businesses positioned to do it (Microsoft has plenty of cash on hand, a rich market cap, and would have no problem raising additional financing) such a deal would be a total disaster for Microsoft, according to Global Equities Research analyst Trip Chowdhry. "Microsoft has all the pieces it needs to build its Live brand. A Yahoo acquisition will disrupt Microsoft's execution, confuse customers, and dilute -- without repair -- Microsoft's brand," Chowdhry says. "The Live brand is youthful, while Yahoo resonates as an internet site for old people."
News Corp. - Rupert Murdoch is in it to win it, and he's willing to spend exorbitant sums of money to own the internet (as evidenced by his $580 million acquisition of MySpace). Still, an outright acquisition of Yahoo isn't really his style. "I think Rupert's been willing to take minority stakes in companies where he can take control," says Pali Research analyst Richard Greenberg. "I'm skeptical of the portal business in general and with the MySpace acquisition, I think News Corp. has some big opportunities to attack portals' core business."
Time Warner - It's been eight years since AOL announced its bid to buy Time Warner in a $165 billion deal. Since then, the AOL business has deteriorated dramatically, and Time Warner has even toyed with the idea of spinning it off. "We've seen how the AOL Time Warner merger just didn't work," says Greg Gorbatenko, an analyst with Jackson Securities. "Now AOL's dragging Time Warner down. If you were to introduce Yahoo into the mix, it would be like . . . you gotta be kidding me!"
Viacom - Although Viacom is expected to shop around for acquisitions this year, Yahoo is probably not on the shopping list. "We would expect Viacom to be more active in buying online assets in 2008, but these acquisitions would be small-to-medium moderately sized deals. A large acquisition, the size of Yahoo, would surprise us," says Laura Martin, Soleil-Media Metrics analyst. "It's more important for Viacom to get their core business in shape, and resolve issues with DreamWorks."
We're not saying a deal won't happen -- anything is possible -- but it seems a little far fetched to us.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
New Challenge for iTunes music store
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6679649
New Challenge for iTunes music store
Wal-Mart, Viacom and RealNetworks make move
By Scott Duke Harris
San Jose Mercury News
08/21/2007
Apple's online music empire is under siege. In separate announcements, Wal-Mart and an alliance of Viacom and RealNetworks announced business initiatives that put Apple in their cross-hairs.
Stepping up its competition with Apple's iTunes music store, Wal-Mart Stores has started selling some of its online music catalog without anticopying software known as DRM. The move complements Wal-Mart's sales of MP3 players that rival Apple's iPod.
Meanwhile, Viacom's MTV Networks and RealNetworks announced a merger of their digital-music services, hoping for a bigger share of the growing market for downloads. The combined service will be called Rhapsody America, Van Toffler, president of MTV Networks, said today on a conference call. RealNetworks, based in Seattle, is the owner of the Rhapsody music service.
The competitors are battling Apple's dominance, with its iPod and iTunes music store, which has more than a 70 percent share of online music sales. Digital track sales have risen 48 percent this year, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
"We're going to do a lot more than we've ever done," Rob Glaser, RealNetworks' chief executive officer, said on the call.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart reached an agreement with two major labels, Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group and EMI Group to sell "DRM-free" single tracks for 94 cents a track and albums for $9.22.
The move shows that music industry has begun to bend to the wishes of retailers and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who has called upon record companies to drop "digital rights management" software, or DRM. Most record companies demand that DRM software be used to prevent rampant copying. But Jobs argues that DRM has been ineffective in limiting piracy, but has limited sales and degraded sound quality.
Apple has its own DRM, which requires iPod users to buy from iTunes and limits iTunes tracks from playing on other devices. In late May, iTunes started selling thousands of tracks without DRM under an agreement with EMI Group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News contributed to this story. Contact Scott Duke Harris at sdharris@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-2704.
New Challenge for iTunes music store
Wal-Mart, Viacom and RealNetworks make move
By Scott Duke Harris
San Jose Mercury News
08/21/2007
Apple's online music empire is under siege. In separate announcements, Wal-Mart and an alliance of Viacom and RealNetworks announced business initiatives that put Apple in their cross-hairs.
Stepping up its competition with Apple's iTunes music store, Wal-Mart Stores has started selling some of its online music catalog without anticopying software known as DRM. The move complements Wal-Mart's sales of MP3 players that rival Apple's iPod.
Meanwhile, Viacom's MTV Networks and RealNetworks announced a merger of their digital-music services, hoping for a bigger share of the growing market for downloads. The combined service will be called Rhapsody America, Van Toffler, president of MTV Networks, said today on a conference call. RealNetworks, based in Seattle, is the owner of the Rhapsody music service.
The competitors are battling Apple's dominance, with its iPod and iTunes music store, which has more than a 70 percent share of online music sales. Digital track sales have risen 48 percent this year, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
"We're going to do a lot more than we've ever done," Rob Glaser, RealNetworks' chief executive officer, said on the call.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart reached an agreement with two major labels, Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group and EMI Group to sell "DRM-free" single tracks for 94 cents a track and albums for $9.22.
The move shows that music industry has begun to bend to the wishes of retailers and Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who has called upon record companies to drop "digital rights management" software, or DRM. Most record companies demand that DRM software be used to prevent rampant copying. But Jobs argues that DRM has been ineffective in limiting piracy, but has limited sales and degraded sound quality.
Apple has its own DRM, which requires iPod users to buy from iTunes and limits iTunes tracks from playing on other devices. In late May, iTunes started selling thousands of tracks without DRM under an agreement with EMI Group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News contributed to this story. Contact Scott Duke Harris at sdharris@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-2704.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
