Skip to navigationSkip to content
Minji Moon

Good evening.

Nigerian press censorship

CEO activism

Restaurants, disrupted

Cutting carbon

UN budget woes

Piracy is back

The streaming wars are driving people back to piracy. In an era where keeping up with every buzzy show spread across HBO, Apple TV+, Disney+, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Netflix can run you more than $50 per month, illegal downloads are starting to look appealing again. (Vice)

Disney + and ‘The Mandalorian’ Are Driving People Back to Torrenting

What would be true innovation in the TV space is a centralized service with literally everything from all the providers that allows you to simply pay for a specified selection of shows. Breakdown the channels even further into individual shows. This is essentially what people do with torrents. Unfortunately

What would be true innovation in the TV space is a centralized service with literally everything from all the providers that allows you to simply pay for a specified selection of shows. Breakdown the channels even further into individual shows. This is essentially what people do with torrents. Unfortunately what's best for consumers would wreck havoc on many companies and there's just too much money to be had for a service like this to take over.

So there is value in the model of separation between content creation and distribution. Like what cable co’s used to do... or movie theater chains and studios... ultimately an independent carrier that allows consumers to pick from many creators is the ideal state...

Interesting to see that this is

So there is value in the model of separation between content creation and distribution. Like what cable co’s used to do... or movie theater chains and studios... ultimately an independent carrier that allows consumers to pick from many creators is the ideal state...

Interesting to see that this is one area with evidence of consumer harm (higher prices) and yet, the FTC and DoJ have allowed for consolidation and vertical integration of content creation and distribution (eg: AT&T + Time Warner, Comcast + NBC Universal)...

I live in South Africa and I wanted to watch The Mandalorian but since we’re not one of the countries that get Disney+ I of course pirated the show. Even though I have Netflix I barely watch the original shows and getting three more subscriptions to watch one or two shows from each provider seems ludicrous

I live in South Africa and I wanted to watch The Mandalorian but since we’re not one of the countries that get Disney+ I of course pirated the show. Even though I have Netflix I barely watch the original shows and getting three more subscriptions to watch one or two shows from each provider seems ludicrous. While it seems like the consumers are winning with more options the economics don’t support it IMHO.

They didn't see this coming? Too many providers all wanting fees to provide limited numbers of quality shows. I have cable with hundreds of channels and little worth watching. If it wasn't for PBS TVO BBC and TCM I would stick to broadcast. In all likelihood to cut down the piracy the production companies

They didn't see this coming? Too many providers all wanting fees to provide limited numbers of quality shows. I have cable with hundreds of channels and little worth watching. If it wasn't for PBS TVO BBC and TCM I would stick to broadcast. In all likelihood to cut down the piracy the production companies could sell individual programs copying the music business.

This is now very similar to the music industry with Spotify, Deezer, Soundcloud, Tidal, and Apple Music. A lot of common content but also a lot of exclusives to each channel. At the end of the day consumers will make a choice and miss out on content where their willing to pay is less than the asking

This is now very similar to the music industry with Spotify, Deezer, Soundcloud, Tidal, and Apple Music. A lot of common content but also a lot of exclusives to each channel. At the end of the day consumers will make a choice and miss out on content where their willing to pay is less than the asking price. This is healthy competition and will result in better services overall, more content and lower prices for consumers.

Extremists find new platforms

Bolivian election turmoil

The future of music

An app lets you hear concerts as sound engineers intended. Mixhalo allows you to plug in headphones and hear the mix of musicians coming from the venue's soundboard—and even customize it to focus on a particular instrument or vocal part.

The future of live music lives on your smartphone

I get to try out a lot of new technologies in my role, and this is one of the very few times I’ve felt floored by something new in a long time. I feel like this technology could be revolutionary for the way we experience live events. This is like what HD TV was for video. If it takes off, live events

I get to try out a lot of new technologies in my role, and this is one of the very few times I’ve felt floored by something new in a long time. I feel like this technology could be revolutionary for the way we experience live events. This is like what HD TV was for video. If it takes off, live events will never be the same again.

Game. Changer.

Live mixing is super hard and gets very expensive in large venues to ensure all speakers are calibrated with delays and power settings so the sound doesn’t become a chaos of reverberated cacophony on its own. And then there is the crowd on top of it.

As the article mentions: every

Game. Changer.

Live mixing is super hard and gets very expensive in large venues to ensure all speakers are calibrated with delays and power settings so the sound doesn’t become a chaos of reverberated cacophony on its own. And then there is the crowd on top of it.

As the article mentions: every seat now can have a great audio experience. You might want to pay for more expensive seats in order to get closer to the stage.

For those of us who remember awful-sounding stadium concerts in the 90s, recent advances in speaker quality and acoustics have meant that musicians can’t mess around any more. If this takes off, bands will have to raise their game even further.

I do not doubt whatsoever this is the future for how live performance will be experienced. An awesome example of how brilliant innovations seem obvious in retrospect.

Charting the political spectrum

Team Trump in trouble

Trump's tax returns will become public if the Supreme Court follows precedent. The high court must decide whether to grant the president's new petition for review. If it does, that won't necessarily bode well for Trump.

If the Supreme Court follows precedent, Trump’s tax returns will become public

It’s a weird one... on the one hand, the long history of state vs federal reach and powers is a struggle that shaped the constitution by the framers. And on the other hand US presidents have also traditionally voluntarily disclosed their tax returns...

Sitting president aside, this is one to watch

It’s a weird one... on the one hand, the long history of state vs federal reach and powers is a struggle that shaped the constitution by the framers. And on the other hand US presidents have also traditionally voluntarily disclosed their tax returns...

Sitting president aside, this is one to watch: it’s far reaching in the implications towards the ever expanding executive powers...

Yesterday Trump filed a petition to the US Supreme Court seeking to block a subpoena that will force his accountants to turn over his financials. The prior cases on related matters didn't turn out well for presidents Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. But Trump is making much of the distinctions here and

Yesterday Trump filed a petition to the US Supreme Court seeking to block a subpoena that will force his accountants to turn over his financials. The prior cases on related matters didn't turn out well for presidents Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. But Trump is making much of the distinctions here and hoping the justices will agree that this case, arising from a state grand jury investigation, is unconstitutional.

The mind of the millennial

Millennials would rather stay in, thanks. What does the outside world provide that a bubble bath and Netflix—not to mention the gratification of posting about both on social media—don’t?

Why millennials never want to leave their apartment anymore

If you're home alone and posting on social media...are you really home alone? Did you reap the same benefits as you would have in true solitude? I'm really asking.

I consider this trend a personal victory against the grownups who insisted I should play outside with other kids, when I was growing up

A key thing about introverts that psychologists always stress is that they don't so much want to be "alone" as much as they want to be with a select group of people with whom they feel comfortable. All of the things that we end up doing alone at home, we could technically be doing with a group of close

A key thing about introverts that psychologists always stress is that they don't so much want to be "alone" as much as they want to be with a select group of people with whom they feel comfortable. All of the things that we end up doing alone at home, we could technically be doing with a group of close friends. You know, like watching a TV show on Netflix, facepacks etc (maybe not the bubble bath, unless your group of close friends is REALLY close). But I guess what technology has also done is made it harder to really connect with people and siloed city life doesn't help either. Sigh, it's another case of the chicken and the desperate need for some connection.

Perhaps this goes without saying, but city life is expensive for millennials. Those bars, restaurants and Art Gallery biennales don't come cheap, and if you're tired from hustling to pay rent and groceries (and Netflix, and Spotify, and Uber...) why would you spend more money on luxuries like public eating and drinking?

Having a “fun night in” is cheaper, easier, safer, completely in your control, and did I mention cheaper? What’s not to love? Now if I could only find someone to share it with...

Psychologically speaking

Psychologists vs. climate change. The leaders of psychological associations from more than 40 countries signed a proclamation to use their expertise to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.”

Psychologists from 40 countries pledged to use their jobs to address climate change

Interesting article. Back in the early 90’s I worked in a pilot plant for some of the new products to replace the CFC’s that we’re creating the hole in the ozone layer. This problem was urgent and demanded cooperation on many levels to solve. The problem is similar to the one we are attempting to address

Interesting article. Back in the early 90’s I worked in a pilot plant for some of the new products to replace the CFC’s that we’re creating the hole in the ozone layer. This problem was urgent and demanded cooperation on many levels to solve. The problem is similar to the one we are attempting to address with Climate Change but on a much smaller scale. Back then as now the solutions were already worked out. There were replacement products that were known but it was necessary for industry and governments to participate. The Montreal protocol, an international accord was agreed upon to phase out CFC’s and the major manufacturer of CFC, DuPont (no I did not work for DuPont), unilaterally decided to stop manufacturing CFC. When DuPont made that decision the rest of the industry followed. The efforts were successful although the problem still exists and will be for another 30 years or so.

At the time of the Montreal protocol the policy makers were aware of climate change. The problem is much bigger and demands even more cooperation to address. Like the hole in the ozone layer the solutions have already been worked out. It is time for governments and industries to adopt and implement. It would be very helpful if the major energy companies show some leadership like DuPont did in the late 80’s. When the problem is finally adequately addressed like as with the hole in the ozone layer it will still be with us for a while. How long depends on when we act and how seriously we do so. We are all in this boat and we will float or sink together.

Here is an interesting video from Vox that more closely addresses the topic of the article: https://youtu.be/DkZ7BJQupVA .

Come back soon!

Close

Brands are clamoring to trademark common words, like “the”

Read more on Quartz

From Our Members

  • Trademark registrations are generally reserved for unique and distinct formulations, not common words. But the fever to own intellectual property has never been so high, which explains why brands are laying claim to the words we use every day, like "the." That doesn't mean we won't be able to say the

    Trademark registrations are generally reserved for unique and distinct formulations, not common words. But the fever to own intellectual property has never been so high, which explains why brands are laying claim to the words we use every day, like "the." That doesn't mean we won't be able to say the word anymore—imagine living without "the"—but it does mean a proliferation of applications for registrations that once would have seemed totally laughable.

  • I thought intellectual required thought. Have we devolved to the point where companies try to put their

    mark on every thing like feral cats or pharmaceutical companies.

  • I know it's important to protect intellectual priority, but at what cost? Have we jumped the IP shark?

  • However they want to expend their time and effort is the American way but unless your name is Marc Jacobs or Ohio State University...”a grant of the trademark registration wouldn’t mean much to users of the English language. “. Carry On

  • The need to protect trademark is always respected and makes sense. But using common words like "the" and "1989" to trademark is awkward.

  • There should be a trademarked brand “Enough” that focuses on combatting the tendency of corporate interests to try to preclude other people from freely using language to communicate with their fellow human beings. Some things can’t be owned—like the word “the” and, by the way, the human genome, the Amazon, and public office.

  • I might be enormously wrong and I would actually love to be educated if that’s the case, but this whole story seems like unnecessary outrage to me.

    As the article states, there would never be anything wrong with using the word “the” in any case except for the ones who could be classified as trying

    I might be enormously wrong and I would actually love to be educated if that’s the case, but this whole story seems like unnecessary outrage to me.

    As the article states, there would never be anything wrong with using the word “the” in any case except for the ones who could be classified as trying to mimic the specific way (colors, composition, fonts, etc) in which it was trademarked. If The Ohio University starts using its brand in a way that emphasizes the word “the”, that would be a bold stylist choice to highlight the least meaningful way on its name. If that comes to be considered cool and trendy (which it really could!), other brands could start doing the same, in a clear attempt to piggyback on their creativity. Isn’t this grounds to leverage trademark protections?

    So, they really aren’t trying to claim the word “the” as theirs — and making this implication on article titles reeks of sensationalist, click-baity journalism —, they are just planning to use it in a certain stylistically characteristic way, and trying to trademark this specific use, in a specific context and style.

    On the other hand, the whole “Kimono” thing was much closer to a disaster. If the Kardashians brand managers were really as clever as they seem to be, they should have known any benefits of claiming that word as a trademark would be overshadowed by the intense public backlash of trying to take ownership of such a well-known and beloved icon from a culture that’s totally not hers.

  • I have major issues with generic words or hypernyms (defined as a word with broad meaning that more specific words fall under) being owned by anyone, especially a corporation. This has happened in the dairy and meat industries in a handful of states and certain countries, like France.

    Of course Taylor

    I have major issues with generic words or hypernyms (defined as a word with broad meaning that more specific words fall under) being owned by anyone, especially a corporation. This has happened in the dairy and meat industries in a handful of states and certain countries, like France.

    Of course Taylor Swift tried to secure the rights to 1989 because everything important about 1989 has to do with her birth and subsequent album. And Kim Kardashian filed for “kimono.” This all would be very funny if it wasn’t so unsettling. I don’t want to live in a world where KK can police Japan on an ancient form of dress.

    If the primary purpose of trademarks is to limit customer confusion then this isn’t that. I miiiight understand if she had wanted to trademark Kardashian, though I’m not sure Armenians of the same surname would feel the same.

  • Me: “Howard University” > “The [insert unnecessary adjective] HOWARD University”

  • So we just took “intellectual” out of “intellectual property.” Let’s just trademark all “and,” “but,” “hello,” etc. At what point will we say “enough is enough”? Or maybe I can’t say that since it will be trademarked?

  • “Impossible” burger

  • Seriously?