(N.B. If you are new to the topic check the previous post on this blog for background info).

The Mashable article is very condemning of Viacom in making their requests for logging history, and also critical of the US judge who ruled in their favour on the action, mainly out of anger that Youtube users might now be at risk from facing potential (and probably successful) copyright violation lawsuits from Viacom.

To draw a parallel with another similar high profile case - it is as if Metallica (the famous heavy metal band), who sued Napster over enabling illegal filesharing of their music a few years back, had instead sued Napster for user download histories - with the intention of then researching the details further, hoping to bring direct legal action against the individual users involved.

In essence this is what it seems likely Viacom is doing (and exactly what Mashable alleges is happening).

Now no question this is massively unfair on users who had no idea they were viewing copyrighted material on Youtube, and who might potentially find themselves the subjects of swift legal action from Viacom for doing so. Obviously this will generate massive negative PR for Viacom - and rightly so, but they do not seem to mind too much right now.

However the point that I made in my earlier post remains valid; a massive copyright infringement has occurred which ever way you turn it, and Viacom have suffered as a result of it. They are in the business of making money from their shows, and under current laws they have suffered a loss of earnings through online theft of content.

The only question is; who is the thief that should pay? Is it Youtube (i.e. Google), who facilitated the unknowing theft? Or the users who willingly, though unwittingly benefited from the breach?

Viacom did try to make both pay - but their requests for some of Google’s source code was rejected (a protection of trade secrets), while the logging database request was approved. Basically the former (Google) survived the legal ruling and will suffer only indirectly by virtue of the negative press involved, while the latter (individual users) could possibly face a far greater headache if Viacom pursues legal action.

Draconian as it may seem (and a poor PR exercise) Viacom has a perfectly legal and understandable grievance. It is Google that left users vulnerable to this by not removing such content despite multiple warnings, and thereby betrayed trust on a massive scale.

In essence they stood by and watched as their users committed one copyright breach after another, without warning anyone, and all the while logging the details of every such instance.

Luckily for them their trade secrets have been protected - while ordinary users will have to pay Viacom for the mistake. What must be remembered however - and that which Mashable seems to lose sight of in the author’s (justified) anger - is that it is Youtube and Google that owe users an apology - and not Viacom.

Dejan Levi

The log files contain details of all userIDs and IP addresses for every single video view on record to date, which understandably Google is not keen to share with Viacom…

Google has consequently cited users’ privacy as a primary concern for not wanting to hand over the details, accusing Viacom of making an ‘over-reaching demand for viewing history’. Their statements are making Viacom appear to be some kind of unreasonable and intrusive ogre, ruthlessly harnessing the legal system on a technicality to order Google to hand over excessive quantities of user data.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital civil liberties campaign group, has also backed Google and requested that Viacom back off from their requests.

However the truth really is that Youtube notoriously ignored many warnings about copyright infringement and the potential trouble it could cause (though the problem is admittedly a very difficult one to tackle fully) and is now perhaps inevitably being made accountable for this. Some would say it was merely a matter of time before such a case arose and Viacom’s demands are perfectly reasonable in such a situation.

Indeed it could be argued that it is Youtube that is solely at fault (as the court ruling has decreed) - and Youtube that is guilty of betraying users’ trust - even though Google currently seem very keen to make the opposite seem the case.

In ignoring the copyright warnings, Youtube itself created the possibiliy of such a situation as this arising - and did not consider that in such a case user data would become highly vulnerable. In essence they have brought about the situation where user data can rightfully be claimed by someone else - and are now asserting that to hand user data over is disrespectful of privacy etc.

One cannot help but feel that if Youtube was really as concerned about privacy to the degree they now claim to be, then they would have taken steps to ensure they did not leave themselves - and by extension their users’ details, vulnerable to such an action as this.

To this date no records have yet been handed over - but if it happens that they are (as currently seems likely) we must remember that it is Youtube who is in the wrong, not Viacom, who are perfectly within their rights to take the action they have. Google’s PR is working overtime to counter such a conclusion, but the simple truth is that it is Youtube that has breached the law - and not Viacom.

Some users no doubt will not be concerned over privacy and would happily forsake it in return for access to the content that they view - even when it is protected by copyright. Others though will probably be up in arms about the principles of the issue - and these users would do well to ignore much of Google’s Youtube PR spiel and remember the facts of how such a case has come about…

Though legally justified, Viacom’s request could be considered slightly excessive - but that is not really the issue. The main point is that Google has payed little heed to warnings about this potential problem, and will now have to have to pay for this carelessness with the sacrifice of damaging user trust.

Dejan Levi

Now this is nothing new - it’s many years since the Nintendo Gameboy made handheld entertainment a very everyday thing. And Walkmans have provided us with music on the move for even longer. The nature of today’s handheld device is different only in terms of the specs and capabilities. Arguably we have had access to entertainment technology on the move for a long time.

However, in recent years the extent to which we use such items has increased drastically - and so too the degree to which this use is habitualised in our everyday routines. I for one have noticed myself instinctively plugging in my iPod for example nearly every time I sit down on a train - only to realise that I am doing it as much out of habit as from particularly wanting to listen to anything…

Indeed it seems pretty clear that if one steps onto the tube today there will be far more iPods and handheld devices in use (for entertainment/work/or whatever else) than would have been the case a decade ago - even though the actual concept is nothing new.

Perhaps it is that more people now own some sort of handheld device and so an increase in such gadget use is inevitable. It does also seem pretty logical that, when crammed on a packed commuter train, we choose to use the time for something productive or fun, rather than just to sit and wait.

Despite this I have been wondering if maybe we are becoming less accustomed to using free moments such as these for a bit of internal thought or contemplation, and instead are almost automatically closing ourselves off from the scene around us with headphones or a computer game etc.

Personally I am going to make a deliberate effort to break this gadget routine - whether it involves driving with the radio off, or leaving the iPod or laptop at home for the odd train journey. Some might baulk at the wastefulness of doing ‘nothing’ in these situations, but I personally think it can’t hurt to switch off (technologically speaking) for a few minutes of the day at least.

Not to say you might not see me sitting on the bus doing a little work on my phone or listening to few mp3s on my iPod  every now and then - just that it will be from a conscious decision to do so - rather than a habit of simply plugging in during every spare moment I have. After all, lest all these shiny gadgets make us forget; sometimes it can be quite nice to just sit and ponder…

Dejan Levi

Wales is partially responsible for attracting some of criticisms leveled against him. The rather extravagant use of the Wikimedia expense account, that has been both widely documented and criticised (he once, unsuccessfully, attempted to charge a $1,300 dinner for four to the account) is one factor. It has long been a tricky PR topic for Wales and Wikipedia for some time, with some former employees publishing details of careless expenditure on a few occasions in the past.

Some of these things might not sound so bad, relatively speaking, when taken out of the wider Wikipedia context (especially if compared to some of the behaviour of your average well-paid, high-flying executives and CEOs etc).

Unfortunately for Wales, the problem is all the more serious because of its context. Wales is often going to great lengths to make himself, and Wikipedia seem virtous and noble, though his expense account handling has often been at odds with these claims.

See for example this summary of his views on democracy and the internet, which he is advertising as an after-dinner topic for his guest speaker work. Below is an extract:

‘Mr. Wales predicts that the internet will democratize developing countries by making the world ‘flat,’ opening markets, promoting cultural understanding, and giving developing nations the resources they need to compete in the 21st century. Mr. Wales asserts that internet will combat stereotypes, censorship, media control, and monopolies while simultaneously allowing citizens of developing nations to have a more prominent voice.’

For many, including Seth Finkelstein, this seems frankly tiresome and slightly hypocritical for Wales. After all; it can seem a bit cheeky to claim Wikipedia is a democracy enabling, freedom-of-information spreading revolutionary creation (thus appealing to potential donors to the Wikia Foundation which keeps the whole thing running) - and then to have reports of $600 bottles of wine paid for by expense accounts leaked on the net.

Wales’s lofty claims for Wikipedia are entirely desirable and commendable in theory, and one must not be cynical in denying Wikipedia credit for what it has achieved. However in practice the juxtaposition with the negative press over expenses slightly negates the above assertions, and erodes the credibility of the effort that he otherwise works so hard to promote.

I don’t know if Wales regrets that he chose not to profit from Wikipedia by choosing to run it as a charitable venture (his official answer is that he doesn’t). Perhaps there remains a desire to know how it would have been had he done otherwise, and was now as royally rich as Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Tom Anderson (Myspace) and all the other Web 2.0 success-story characters.

One cannot blame him for failing to live up to the lofty idealistic image of himself and Wikipedia that he aspires to (he never made any vow to poverty or sainthood - as Finkelstein observes). However we must recognise that his failure to live up to this, (often in quite spectacular and headline-grabbing ways) is nonetheless hurting Wikipedia, by eroding its respectability, credibility and image.

Finkelstein may exaggerate when he compares Wikipedia to a sweatshop, (in my view his comparison is slightly offensive to people suffering in, and fighting against, the use of actual sweatshop labour), but this is separate matter.

As someone who considers Wikipedia to be a very positive thing (if it can remain independent, accurate, democratic and reliable) I believe it is paramount that Wales guards against the slips that, now he is so in the public eye, damage him not only personally but by extension (and more importantly) Wikipedia. I am one of many that wants to see it develop into the massively positive and useful, democratic, knowledge-sharing tool that it has to potential to become (and that it already is in some countries), which it can only really do if Wales rectifies the slip-ups that inevitably are seized upon by the press, and result in a real PR headache…

Dejan Levi

Here’s an interesting statistic: Apple’s 2008 sales estimate for the iPhone is 10m, while the global mobile phone market as a whole is expected to shift 1bn handsets in the same period. Therefore, assuming these estimates end up being at least somewhat accurate, the iPhone will account for only 1% of mobile phone sales in 2008.

Question is; if the actual sales are relatively low (as they clearly are), how come the iPhone is pretty much far and away the most recognisable and ‘famous’ model out there?

With Apple having this week announced the details of their forthcoming updated and cheaper iPhone it seems a good time to consider this question. There is a range of possible explanations:

Hypothesis 1 - The iPhone is the market leading model in terms of features and functionality

Well… not quite - Despite the newly announced price cut (from $399 to $199) and the addition of 3G network capability (plus GPS), even the new and improved forthcoming iPhone is still a little short of the competition. The 2 megapixel camera is trumped by almost every other camera phone on the market, with smartphone rivals featuring at least 3 if not 3.5 megapixels as a minimum. In comparison the iPhone camera looks more like a limited toy at best, rather than a serious piece of photography kit.

It seems Apple is going for the value-for-money angle with their new announcements, rather than market-leading features. Here’s a list of some of the things that the iPhone still lacks: SMS forwarding, Bluetooth profiles and voice and speed dialing. Pretty much all other high-end smartphones boast all of the above.

Basically the iPhone, having been launched as a top-end smartphone, has been overtaken by more feature-rich and cheaper rivals such as the Nokia N96 and Blackberry Thunder. This has prompted a change of tact, whereby Steve Jobs has identified that the next ‘mountain to climb is to make the iPhone cheaper’, having stated that cost was the main reason iPhone sales did not do better.

He is right to a point; but there is a fundamental difference between an expensive phone, and an overpriced one - which Apple are not publicly acknowledging.

Unfortunately for Jobs and Apple, the iPhone quickly went from being the former to the latter once the competition caught up.

So what can the new changes hope to achieve? This leads us on to the next issue:

Hypothesis 2 - The iPhone is the market leader in terms of brand and design

Now we’re getting to it. It is no secret that Apple, and Steve Jobs in particular, has a special fascination for bloggers, journalists, and indeed many relevant media channels. The hype that surrounds new announcements from Apple - and the subsequent coverage - is the envy of the whole industry sector. No-one else can so effectively enrapture the media into such drooling anticipation, as Apple does on a regular basis.

This is perhaps the cleverest aspect of their approach to designing products. In a sector that often becomes overloaded with jargon, technicalities and uninteresting data, Apple’s products have something that is forever distinguishing them from the plethora of rivals. Even when competitors raise their game, Apple somehow stays ahead - and the iPhone is a perfect example, for it is literally (in an aesthetic sense) like no other.

This, combined with some creative advertising, helps to build a singular brand identity for Apple, the depth of which can rarely be matched - even by those who might offer an otherwise ‘better’ handset.

Apple’s heavy price cut, but lack of extensive new features represents a realisation of their strengths as a brand in a saturated marketplace. Unable to compete on features, Apple stands a far better chance of increasing sales by offering a decent (but not the best) phone, with excellent looks and all the connotative strengths of the brand - all for an affordable price. In addition they have the support of successful alternative products such as iTunes which provide an extra point in the ‘pros’ column for the iPhone.

Ultimately it is the iPhone’s clever use of aesthetic design, and brand image that earns it such extensive media and market presence - plus the affiliation with other Apple products. These strengths will carry over into the mid-level phone market, and this is why Apple have been so quick to move away from a field they once briefly ruled (high-end smartphones), and into one in which they have a great chance of future success (more of a mid-range affair). And before we go concluding that this is a change the company has been forced into - let’s consider this:

The iPhone has been established as a top-end smartphone in terms of image at least, if no longer actual fact - and for many customers to now suddenly see it within their price range will surely feel like a bargain. I don’t doubt that sales will dramatically increase after the July price cut. The iPhone did well for while on the strength of its features and design - now it will continue to do well on on the strength of its cost and design.

All that is left is for me to applaud the ingenious handling of the iPhone product by Apple - which, though good, is not the best, but somehow almost always manages to seem so to consumers. The new change of tact should only ensure that this continues to remain the case, and I must admit I am now seriously considering ditching my Sony Ericsson (even with its 3.2 mp camera!) for a shiney new £99 3G iPhone…

Dejan Levi

The firm was founded in 2002, and now has offices in London, Sydney and New York, having enjoyed tremendous success with average annual revenue growth of approximately 100%.

They now have over 230 clients internationally, including nearly one-third of the top 100 global law firms, financial services and numerous professional and property service companies.

Concep makes business communications a one-to-one experience. They develop and implement pinpoint digital marketing strategies that work, and required a professional, Drupal driven website to demonstrate the range of their services and provide an effective point of contact with potential clients.

After being let down by another London agency on the same project, Concep approached etonDIGITAL asking us to help with the integration of their pixel perfect design into Drupal CMS.

We started with the basics and listened closely, allowing us to demonstrate the caliber of EtonDIGITAL’s Drupal development skills. A key requirement was that the site complied with W3C WAI guidelines which EtonDigital was happy to deliver.

We would like to take the opportunity to thank the whole EtonDigital team and Concep Global for their hard work on this successful job.

Eton Digital work

It was hardly an enticing field for creative DIY developers to enter on a casual basis - but arguably this ensured a certain level of quality was maintained across much of the industry’s output (and rightly so; with new games typically averaging somewhere between £29-49 it’s only to be expected that a high quality product should be delivered).

In the past, whole teams of staff would work away for many months to perfect graphics, gameplay, plot, user interface etc, to produce a fully polished product. In the recent times though, new and alternative models of operating in the industry have been emerging, and the result is a whole new (and vast) realm of gamer experience.

Electronic distribution systems (such as Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network, Wii-Ware etc) have greatly reduced the costs of delivering a title to gamers. No longer must packaging be designed and paid for by games publishers, no longer must costly real-world distribution rates be incurred, and no longer must that cost be passed on to game buyers.

Moreover, users’ expectations have also been drastically re-configured with regard to the types of gaming experiences they desire - largely as a consequence of the success of the Nintendo Wii and the plethora of new avenues it has opened up (Keith Stuart in this week’s Guardian has written some interesting points on this). We are now happy to buy a new game simply on the premise that it offers a new user experience (take most Wii titles as examples) even with the knowledge that the game lacks ‘traditional’ hallmarks of quality such as high-quality graphics or extensive game time.

Small DIY developers can now produce concept-driven titles in as little as six months, distribute them electronically for the price of only a few pounds - and still turn a profit. The graphics are often ‘retro’ at best, and in many cases can be simply dire when measured against traditional standards. The variety of experiences contained within can also be pretty poor; but who cares when the game costs £5, is delivered at the touch of a button, and provides a couple of days great entertainment? It’s still better value than going to the cinema…

Luckily for major studios this new gaming sector is unlikely to impact on the levels of quality within the traditional higher tier of games development. If anything, this new lower/cheaper/quicker tier represents a great arena to try new and daring things that would be too financially risky for major studios, thereby enabling and encouraging creativity. Furthermore, young talent has a safe playground in which to explore and develop ideas and skills, ultimately strengthening the skills base and standards of the sector’s professionals.

The main point really is that we are witnessing the birth of the ‘Independent’ gaming industry - in a sense a lower budget sector that complements the mainstream players in the same way that independent film-making complements Hollywood. Neither is necessarily better than the other; it is often a question of taste - but together they allow for much greater range of entertainment/art/products to be delivered to the consumer. Maybe two-tier description is a little simplistic; in reality there is a very gradual spread across the whole spectrum - but it serves to illustrate the differing methods.

In recent decades digital cameras, video-editing software, and a crucial broadening of consumers’ range of acceptance with regard to new forms, have opened the film industry up to more experimentation, new avenues of creativity and, ultimately, more choice for the public. Now, in the same way, electronic distribution and a changing demographic of users is ensuring that gaming can mean so much more than it used to.

Definitions are constantly being loosened as the form gains new dimensions and becomes more inclusive - and the new development styles, and the titles being produced, are doing a great deal to attract a more casual gaming audience to this entertainment option. All this should go some way to ensuring that the massive gaming industry (worth $9bn in 2007) will only continue to grow more and more as a mainstream entertainment form. All in all, a pretty positive outlook lies ahead for the gaming industry…

Dejan Levi

After Dinara Safina had beaten Svetlana Kuznetsova in the first semi-final, it meant that the winner of the all-Serbian clash would be guaranteed to top the rankings after the tournament.

We at Eton Digital congratulate Ana Ivanovic on becoming the new Sony Ericsson WTA Tour world No.1 and celebrate her success at Roland Garros.

Eton Digital is proud to be associated with Ana Ivanovic and enjoys a close working relationship which we hope will continue for some time.

The latest review, from Clarke Design, had this to say about the EtonDigital design;

‘First Impressions; Outstanding - What a superb looking website. Well laid-out, clean and tidy, using the latest style. The colour scheme works well and is easy on the eye.

The search bar is by far the most important item on the site and it is bold, clear and so easy to use.

Searching for property; Searches work well, results are well presented and sortable. The detail pages are excellent, quick loading and very easy to read with lots of information.’

We would like to thank Clarke Design for their excellent feedback and the whole EtonDigital team for their hard work on this project. PremierFrenchProperty.com features CSS design, a Drupal CMS, and Google Maps integration.

To view the Premier French Property website click here.

Full review: Premier French Property website review

The first design - for PMW LTD, features a Wordpress Content Management System, and has already attracted praise from several online CSS galleries (including CSS Mania). Since its launch, average daily user numbers have increased from 20 to 600 when compared with the previous design. (PMW is an Essex-based, BMW and Mercedes service and repair specialist).

Secondly, we are delighted to announce the addition of a new feature to Sprintbio.com, for whom we recently provided a new homepage. We have now added a Wordpress e-commerce solution in the form of Sprinbio Retail, which offers an easily manageable financial transaction facility, with fully integrated PayPal services. Sprintbio is a leader in environmentally friendly and efficient home heating and power solutions - now complete with an online web-store.

Finally, we can also announce the launch of Air-Valid - for whom we provided Web 2.0 design and CSS/HTML programming. Air-Valid is a leading analyst of the aviation industry with operations across the world.

We would like to thank both the ED team and all our clients for their hard work on making these projects a success.

EtonDigital