With Oscar buzz behind us it’s time to look forward to movies that will make up next year’s awards. If you want to throw your hat in the ring, the folks at Britanick released “Academy Award Winning Movie Trailer” to help you out.

The short is a what’s what and shot by shot guide to making the melodramatic yet humorous yet adventurous yet poignant next best thing.

Take a few minutes and enjoy. Then grab your camera and show us what you got.

About Winning the Academy Award is Easy to Do

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. Touching All Screens: How to Produce Award Winning Cross-Platform Content
2. Advertising and PR for Everyone: Who is Winning the Race for Marketing Dollars?
3. Steadicam Ultracine 2 – “Cloverfield” should have budgeted for one of these…

A long-time advertising adage runs something like this: buy time on television and fifty percent of your budget is wasted. Which fifty? Who knows. But fifty percent it will be.

Watch all video interviews from the 2010 IAB Annual Conference.

Sponsored by

The target is simply too broad. Selling men’s deodorant? Your ad spend just hit a considerable amount of women and adolescents. Selling womanly products? A bunch of men just switched channels.

This much is known. Television may be our greatest mass medium but it fails the advertiser specifically because it’s such a mass medium. Yes there are numbers in that buy. But do those numbers contain the specific demographic we hope to reach? Cross our fingers that perhaps so.

But next time you’re in a meeting room see how well the fingers crossed strategy goes down. When the dust settles and the abuse subsides, give us a call and we’ll start thinking strategy, round two.

Television people know this. No matter how segmented our thousand digital channels may be, they’re never quite segmented enough for the ad buyer. There are simply too many unknown people channel surfing on the other side of the tube.

Avner Ronen knows this too. The founder and CEO of Boxee, creators of the open source, “Internet TV” media center, might seem an unlikely savior for the small screen industry and what ails it but savior they might be.

“One of the worst things that happened to advertising on TV is DVR,” he says in the video above, referring to the increasing American propensity to time shift television viewing by recording shows.

As Nielsen reported last year:

“Must See TV” doesn’t mean that people are gathering around their TV anymore during primetime on a Thursday night. Appointment viewing is now when the viewer wants to watch it thanks to DVRs. As of March 2009, 30.6 percent of households in Nielsen’s National People Meter Panel have a DVR, up significantly from just 12.3 percent in January 2007.
A key factor to this expansion is the integration of DVRs into cable and DBS set top boxes: 55 percent of DVR homes had it as part of their cable box and 40 percent had a DVR within their DBS box. Just 5 percent had a standalone DVR. And as households recognize the convenience DVR offers, a growing number are becoming multi-DVR households. 25 percent of homes had two, while 5 percent had three or more.

Take a step back and you realize that not only will an advertiser pay for an audience that might not care for its wares, but those that record programs might skip over the commercials entirely.

Again, we know this but Ronen thinks Internet TV could change it. DVR, he believes, could become obsolete once programming enters the cloud. The point here is why would people record if the programming is always there. Then, if and when delivered through a Boxee type application through the Internet, advertisers can get the measurement details they crave.

“You get the benefits of targeting and measurement and accountability that you have on the Internet and that should be great news for the industry,” Ronen believes.

Content consumer stand to benefit too. If traditional television is a one to many broadcast medium with recipients passive consumers of advertisements, Internet TV turns us into active participants in that process.

Hulu’s been experimenting with this model, asking viewers to decide what type of advertising they’d like to see before watching clips and shows. This will increasingly become the norm and with active audience participation and ownership, the idea is there will be greater recall rates and engagement with actual brand advertising.

Boxee’s currently innovating. They plan on releasing a payment platform in the second quarter of this year. Good news for the networks and other publishers that are looking for monetization strategies.

“When people value content they will pay for it,” says Ronen.

For Boxee skeptics, Internet engagement, measurement and discernible metrics are certainly a better strategy than fingers crossed on a lost fifty percent.

Related posts:

1. Boxee as The (anti-TiVO) Solution
2. You Want a Cigarette After That?
3. Former Huffington Post CEO Tells All

The conference will feature panels and speakers on a variety of topics, including information communication technology (ICT) and development (including a special forum on Haiti and a discussion of telemedicine strategies), new media and authoritarianism, open governance, and a roundtable discussion of how policy schools can get involved in the debate. Our high profile speakers come from the U.S. Department of State’s Office of eDiplomacy, New York City Council, FrontlineSMS, Ushahidi, and Columbia, Harvard and Stanford Universities.

I mention this not just because I teach there but because I’ll be on an afternoon panel exploring how information and communication technology is being used by governments, development agencies, non-profit organizations and ordinary citizens to work toward a better world. I think there’ll be some authoritarianism thrown in for good measure. Or, at least, techniques activists are using to get around authoritarian attempts to repress and block speech and citizen access to information.

As mentioned, the event is free. The schedule is here. Some notables include John Zittrain most likely talking about open and closed Internet systems, and Patrick Meier discussing how he and others used Ushahidi to respond to the earthquake in Haiti.

Hope you can join us.

About Policy Making in the Digital Age

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. Alert: Ushahidi in Haiti
2. MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY-MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY: BY THE TIME YOU READ THIS, IT WILL BE OBSOLETE
3. Dollars in Digital: Producing Web Programming and Making It Profitable

An Asian Weaver ant carrying 100 times its body weight while upside down — Thomas Endlein, via the BBSRC.

The Journal of Comparative Physiology A once published a cover story on “passive control of pretarsal attachment in ants.”

Translated into English that you and I can understand: certain ants have incredibly sticky pads on their feet that let them walk upside down. A fundamental question facing researchers though is that given the adhesion, how do they walk without getting stuck?

How to Shoot an Ant

Congratulations are in order as Endlein just won the BBSRC Science Photography competition for the amazing image above. He explains how he took it:

“The image was taken using a Canon EOS 5D with a 2.8/100 mm macro lens and twin flash guns. To get the shot I made use of their natural behaviour: these ants are very aggressive towards almost anything which comes close to them. They try to grab and bite to take down potential threats, like other insects. And once they grab an object they won’t let go for a very long time. So they did with the little weight suspended on a string.” — Dr. Thomas Endlein

“The basic principle of sticking is to use a thin fluid layer in-between the adhesive pads and the substrate,” explains Dr. Thomas Endlein of the Centre for Cell Engineering at Glasgow University. His research demonstrates that the Asian Weaver ant can control its adhesive strength on three hierarchical levels: the foot, the leg and the entire body.

“On the ‘foot level’,” he says, “they can change the size and shape of their pad dynamically to adapt the contact area according to the experienced load. If they have to carry heavy loads they increase the contact area, when they need to run they decrease it.”

Such is shown in the image above where we see an Asian Weaver ant carrying 100 times its body weight while upside down. If I do an apples and robots comparison that could be me carrying 18,000 extra pounds on my back. Additional adhesion from my legs and body would help me do it.

“Ants vary the number of their feet in contact,” says Endlein as he outlines how ants demonstrate body control. “When they run upside down they often keep at least 4 feet in contact, whilst running upright they use only three feet simultaneously in contact.”

And then the sticky business about not getting stuck. The metaphor Endlein uses is tape attached to a surface. We’re generally successful removing it when we pull it off at steep angles. Shallow angles? Not so much.

“Ants use the same mechanism,” he says. “In case they want to stick they keep their legs in a shallow angle towards the surface, when they want to release them, they increase this angle and peel off easily.”

Understanding the biology of the Asian Weaver could help scientists develop better glues and adhesives. If so it wouldn’t be the first time the powerlifter demonstrated its worth to humans. The fiercely territorial ant has defended Southeast Asian citrus orchards from invading insect pests for the past 1,500 years.

AboutOn Ants, Powerlifting & Macro Photography

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. PSFK: The Changing Face of Photography
2. All You Need is Funds
3. Gynormous Manfrotto Tripod Eats Unsuspecting Drunk

Pawns via Creative Commons/Flickr.

“It’s overwhelming, fantastic, and like all technological marvels,” says Damon Horowitz, “just a little bit amusing.”

Just a week ago Google bought Horowitz’s social search start-up Aardvark for a reported $50 million. The price is one the company co-founder will neither confirm nor deny. What he will allude to though is that now that they’re under the Google umbrella, Aardvark-style “social search” will attempt to integrate across the company’s ever expanding offerings.

If you’re familiar with Aardvark let your imagination run for a moment and consider how the platform can turbo-boost Google Buzz which was also, and perhaps serendipitously, released last week.

If you’re not familiar with Aardvark — and since it only launched a public beta last October, there’s no reason you should be — a basic primer runs something like this.

Aarvark is a free service that lets those of us puzzled about life’s quandaries ask our social network for answers to our questions. These range from the mundane, “Anyone have a tailor they trust to alter suits near the 1 line in Manhattan?,” to the possibly profound, “How would you figure out how many cats there are in the US that are named Gary?”

More often than not, a response comes within a few minutes.

“We think of Aardvark like a contact who should be available everywhere, through your existing communication channels,” says Horowitz.

Limits of AI

Damon Horowitz explains Artificial Intelligence’s inherent limits and how humans and machines can play nice together — TEDx SoMa 2010.

Questions can be asked through Vark.com, mobile apps, email or instant messenger and the beauty of it all is that responses are contextual. Answers are, after all, coming from people within your social graph. The benefit of social search is the human touch, real responses from real people.

“Aardvark is great when you want to get an answer from a person right away, and you don’t want to try to hunt through a bunch of web pages yourself,” Horowitz explains. “Often we don’t want static information from the web, but a personal answer to our specific question — we want someone to hear our question, understand our context, and share their relevant experience.”

By connecting into existing social circles such as those we have via Facebook and Twitter, Aardvark scans our social graph for those who have similar backgrounds, sensibilities and interests. Send Aardvark a question and the service surveys our first circle of connections and then friends of friends.

Like Twitter, Aardvark should be thought of as a utility rather than a Web application or destination site. Whether it’s Aardvark that succeeds or another company like it, giving people the ability to leverage their social graph to intelligently ask and answer questions across any connected device will increasingly become part of the Internet’s plumbing.

Aardvark’s leveraging of the vast amounts of social, geographic and overall data sloshing through the Web and reconstructing it into a useful utility demonstrates an overall shift in the Internet’s evolution. There’s even a name being promoted to describe the trend. It’s called the Synaptic Web.

In His Own Words

Khris Loux explains the Synaptic Web at the Defrag Conference 2009.

“The Synaptic Web is a set of observations about how the Web is forming,” says Khris Loux, CEO of Echo and proponent of the concept. “As the speed, flexibility and complexity of connections on the Web increase exponentially, the Internet is increasingly beginning to resemble a biological analog; the human brain.”

The metaphor here is that all our information and actions are pings firing across the Internet much like synapses firing in a brain. A single ping doesn’t do much in an of itself but multiply to scale with the billions and billions of social actions people are committing online and you have the beginnings of a pulsating, thinking ecosystem.

Microsoft’s Photosynth is a Synaptic Web example, says Loux. By taking the discrete photos taken by the crowd, combining them with geographic data and mixing them through — and analyzing them with — very smart code, whole new images and ways to explore spaces are created.

“Photosynth,” Loux explains, “is clear proof that patterns exist and meaning can be discerned without the need for active coordination between users.”

What he’s talking about is a meta-web, a place that isn’t so much sites and HTML pages but instead human connections augmented by the machine.

Horowitz has worked on these problems for a while now. His background is in Artificial Intelligence and philosophy. What he concluded though is that trying to get the machine to think and act like a human is a bit of a fool’s errand. Instead, we should be harnessing the machine to increase connections between people and leverage human intelligence.

“Machines do well at processing large quantities of information — they are great at fast indexing, numerical analysis, pattern recognition and such,” says Horowitz. “Humans deal well with context — they are naturally adept at understanding other humans, at sharing subjective experiences, thinking through ideas, and helping each other out.

When the Web was born some twenty years ago, it was a publishing mechanism. If you learned some HTML you could put up a page and broadcast your thoughts. Everyone became a publisher.

When the Web was reborn as Web 2.0, everyone became a commentator. The read/write Web has been a participatory experience. You write, I comment. You post, we share.

Facebook built an empire on this read/write model and while it and Twitter are now part of social media vernacular, Aardvark — despite its aquisition by Google — is still under the radar.

This is a shame. Where else can you get answers to life’s questions in under five minutes, a claim Aardvark legitimately makes.

“I know this ‘we sit on top of all your other social information online’ approach isn’t yet a fully established paradigm,” Horowitz says, “but I think everything is moving that way.”

The change is tectonic and while tectonic change comes imperceptibly at first, Internet time moves quite fast. Five years ago seems ancient in the Web world, just as five years from now 2010 will appear quite quaint.

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Managing reputation can be tricky. Take a colleague of mine. As far as I know — and I know him pretty well — he’s a capable, intelligent and amiable fellow. Oh, and law abiding too. Yes, law abiding.

Why do I say that? Because if you search on the Google for him your second result will be for a convict with his exact same name. It’s come up when dealing with clients and potential employers. This usually happens after an awkward pause and goes something like this: “So, um, I hate to bring this up, um, but, ah… ah… you ever spend time in jail?”

No he hasn’t. And when explained there’s usually a laugh followed perhaps by another awkward silence.

Search “Colombia” and Ms. Colombia greets you.

I bring all this up because of a conversation this morning with my cousin. He wants to visit Colombia. He mentioned that when he did a search on the country, one of the first image results is of beautiful women. Sure enough, here it is.

This got me thinking. Usually when doing image searches for countries the first results are maps and flags. But what does the first results with people in it say about national character? How does it brand the country.

Brand Colombia: sultry.

Let’s try Iran. It’s in the news. The world’s talking about it non-stop. Negotiations go on in the UN Security Council to figure out how to halt the nation’s nuclear ambitions.

Here are the first humans we get via an “Iran” Google image search.

Iran’s digital reputation? Less Good.

Obviously not so good.

My cousin and I went back and forth on this for a while. We’d select a country and just like that, brand image in a search result.

Definite loser of the bunch after Iran is Mugabe’s Zimbabwe below.

Not only are there no maps and flags, the first result is just a disgusting abuse showing the horror of torture. The second image? A baton wielding cop chasing a civilian.

It’s interesting to watch how countries are starting to focus on digital diplomacy.

For better or for worse, many are coming to understand that much rests on actual digital reputation. That is, what topics trend in Twitter, what search results are seen on YouTube and Google.

Mugabe’s World of Nightmare

Better, what search results are buried and mostly forgotten.

National Public Radio recently had a story about Israel’s “pre-emptive PR” strategies for dealing in the Middle East.

Part of the country’s strategy to improve its image in the diplomatic world is to engage the social media world. This was most famously pursued during and after Gaza but diplomacy and reputation is a 24 hour a day, year-round affair.

The Israelis are keenly aware of this.

From All Things Considered:

Noam Lemelshtrich, dean of communications at IDC Herzliya, the university that hosted the conference, says Israel should be using new media — such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube — to get its message across to a wider audience.

“I think we are handling this very, very poorly,” Lemelshtrich says. “It’s not being handled by professionals, it’s being handled by politicians. But fortunately, the Internet and social networks allow the people of Israel, who are much better than their government, to tell their stories to friendly crowds across the world in the United States and in Europe. So I am optimistic, because the new social medium allows us to bypass the government.”

When Tony Blair became Prime Minister he famously sought to rebrand dour England. The attempt was made to make Britain “cool”.

Today, the social Web takes that out of government hands and places it in our search results.

Update

Due to a personal reasons, I’d be remiss not to post the first anthropomorphic image when searching “Russia”. Not quite sure how to interpret this but here goes.

About Branding Nations Through Search Results

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. Video Search
2. LIFE Photo Archive Now Available on Google Image Search
3. Can Search Queries Track the Flu

1000 beer labels create one Homer. Marty.FM via Creative Commons/Flickr.

Good news for our New Orleans comrades who awoke today with a bit of the hangover: beer’s good for you. Or at least it could be.

A study of a hundred beers shows that the suds are a source of dietary silicon. Dietary silicon, in turn, is important for bone health. Non-dietary silicon makes our computer chips.

Now that that’s out of the way, here’s something surprising: a sizable portion of Super Bowl fans want more of Go Daddy’s faux lesbian kink. Akamai shows network traffic spikes after the Danika Patrick driven commercials aired. Like they’ve done in years past, Go Daddy invites viewers to visit its site to view unrated versions of their commercials.

More significantly, the Hollywood Reporter reports that Super Bowl XLIV is officially the most watched event in US history. An estimated 106.5 million viewers tuned in, nudging out the final episode of M*A*S*H (105.97 million) for the top spot.

The Tubes are still dissecting the ads with Audi’s eco-fascism coming out a loser. So too repetitive Dodge ads that suggest that men are beaten down by women except when it comes to their cars. If it’s a Charger that is.

Advertising firm Mullen and measurement agency Radian6 teamed up on something called BrandBowl to measure twitter reaction to the advertising fest. The results are still updated live. As I write this, Google, Doritos and Snickers have the top spots while Walt Disney brings up the rear. That’s not to say they’re the most popular, just that they have the most tweets.

For popularity, the results differ:

The most popular brands at the BrandBowl were McDonald’s, Dr. Pepper and Universal. Interestingly, none of these brands had the sheer number of tweets to break into the BrandBowl’s top ten—but the tweets about these brands were overwhelmingly positive.

In with beer, out with guacamole. An estimated 80 million pounds of avocados were consumed on Super Bowl Sunday. Lead avocado spokesman? Hall of Famer Joe Montana.

Related posts:

1. Lessons from Around the Globe: China: How Super Girl Transformed a Media Superpower
2. The Super-Connected Consumer
3. Some Daily Numbers

It’s amazing how sometimes you take a few minute break to watch a video and two hours later you re-emerge wondering where exactly you’ve been.

Such was my morning. Not even sure how I ended up here but came across the above Beatles cartoon of Penny Lane. It’s part of a collection from 1965 – 1967 that saw 37 half-hour shows produced for British television. Each segment of the show was named after the song it featured. For old school animation fans it’s well worth the time spent.

Supposedly, MTV ran the series in 1986-1987. Unfortunately, I grew up in the boonies and we didn’t have hi-tech gadgetry like cable television so I’m seeing it now for the first time.

Better late than never. This Taxman/Robin Hood one’s pretty fab too:

Enjoy.

Related posts:

1. Jeff Zucker NBC Universal Fireside Chat
2. Color Us Tickled: ScribeMedia Wins an Emmy
3. The Morning Read: Five Easy Pieces for January 14

the|G| via Creative Commons/Flickr.

The Association of National Advertisers released their latest poll today on how economic conditions are affecting advertising and marketing dollars.

The silver lining findings: things suck, but not quite as much as they did six and twelve months ago. The poll, which surveys ANA members, has been conducted every six months for the past two years.

“Today, 83% of the respondents indicate they are identifying cost savings and reductions in their current marketing and advertising efforts,” the report reads. “While that represents a high percentage of respondents, this is improved from six months ago (87%), one year ago (93%), and eighteen months ago (87%).”

Calling savings and reductions the “new normal,” the ANA believes reductions will continue if and when the economy improves. Currently, over 23 percent of the survey’s respondents say they expect to reduce their marketing budget by 11-20 percent. Another 29 percent believe they’ll be asked to make a 10 percent reduction.

“The quest for cost saving and reductions is here to stay and will be with us through both good and bad times,” says Bill Duggan, ANA Executive Vice President. “Just because the economy is improving doesn’t mean that clients won’t continue to press for such reductions. Pressure on agencies seems to be particularly brutal as marketers look for agencies to reduce internal costs as well as reduce the compensation marketers pay to them.”

Cost cutting includes internal mandates such as hiring and salary freezes but, significantly, a majority of respondents say they will reduce their overall advertising media and production budgets.

Yay for the new normal.

A copy of the report can be downloaded here.

Related posts:

1. Study: Web 2.0 Hype Outpaces Reality in B-to-B Marketing Mix
2. Social Media Still in the Zygote Stage
3. The Gravitational Pull of Digital Marketing

Share the Music — Baptiste Pons via Creative Commons/Flickr.

An international music group claims piracy is responsible for a 30 percent decline in global music sales from 2004 to 2009.

In a report released Thursday the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry calls for increased crackdowns on digital piracy, saying that while sales from digital downloads are up 21 percent from a year ago, 95 percent of all music downloaded is pirated.

The IFPI is promoting two key findings:

• Piracy is responsible for a lack of music investment
  

  In Brazil, music sales fell by 43% between 2005 and 2009, with a disastrous impact on investment in local repertoire. In 2008 there were only 67 full priced local artist album releases by the five major companies in Brazil – just one tenth of the number (625) a decade earlier in 1998.

• Piracy threatens all content producers
  

  Today, however, creative industries including movie, publishing and television, regard “monetising” the online world and addressing digital piracy as their greatest challenges. Illegal streaming and film downloads now account for 40% of the movie piracy problem by volume (MPAA). Illegal distribution of TV content is growing faster than music and movie piracy

I’ll start off simply and put some cards on the table: people should not pirate music. It’s theft. And while not $150,000 per infraction wrong, it is stealing. Simple enough.

That said, I take industry reports such as this with pretty much the same grain of salt I take reports from coal lobbyists on the environmental effects of mountain top strip mining.

Here are a few things we know from outside observers with little to no skin in the game. A 2009 UK report tells us that yes, people are buying less recorded music than before. The report also tells us that people are spending more on music in aggregate (ie., going to concerts, buying swag and yes, buying music as well).

The Canadian government, in turn, issued a report of their own. Result: file sharing has “a positive effect on music purchases among Canadian downloaders.”

In Holland, a 2009 Dutch government report discusses overall societal gains attributable to file sharing.

Similarly, two Harvard Business School economists released a working paper that, in part, analyzed the ongoing effects of file sharing. As Michael Geist summarizes:

The paper takes on several longstanding myths about the economic effects of file sharing, noting that many downloaded songs do not represent a lost sale, some mashups may increase the market for the original work, and the entertainment industry can still steer consumer attention to particular artists (which results in more sales and downloads).

We can go on. A major IFPI claim is that less industry money is invested in new artists. Listen again to what they say about Brazil: “In 2008 there were only 67 full priced local artist album releases by the five major companies in Brazil – just one tenth of the number (625) a decade earlier in 1998.” (Emphasis mine).

The statistic sounds dramatic until you think how much has changed during that ten year period. It’s neither here nor there without contextualization so here’s some contextualization: in that ten year span digital tools emerged that allow more artists and musicians to record, produce and market work on their own without major label involvement.

As the Harvard Business School report notes, cultural creativity isn’t decreasing. Instead, it’s exploding. In 2000, 35,516 albums were released. By 2007 that number reached 79,695 albums, according to Nielsen SoundScan. In film, 3,807 features were created in 2003. That number increased to 4,989 in 2007, according to Screen Digest.

Who’s Buying What

TorrentFreak writes in a critique of the same report that when compared to traditional buyers, music sharers (ie., “pirates”) are:

• 31% more likely to buy single tracks online.
• 33% more likely to buy music albums online.
• 100% more likely to pay for music subscription services.
• 60% more likely to pay for music on mobile phone.

So while “five major companies” might no longer control cultural output, that doesn’t mean that cultural output is decreasing. It simply reflects that the means of production have switched elsewhere. This is a good thing.

While the IFPI might like to think — or imply — that the major labels are the entire music industry. They’re not.

They’re one piece of a continuously expanding pie that includes concerts, licensing, swag and other tie-ins. Unfortunately for the major labels, they’re holding the short end of the stick as this growth happens elsewhere.

Let’s not mistake the end of a one hundred year technological anomaly — the ability of a monopoly to record and distribute music — with a newfound need to wage copyright war across the planet as the IFPI hopes will happen.

This is exactly what the IFPI would like us to do though. It bemoans Spain and its “culture of state-tolerated apathy towards illegal file-sharing,” but enthuses about anti-piracy legislation passed in France, South Korea and Taiwan.

“Other governments, from the UK to New Zealand,” the authors applaud, “are proceeding with the introduction of [similar] legislation.”

The IFPI is smart to bring the entire media into this flawed conversation. By pointing out to their television, film and publishing brethren that they’re all in the same game, they line up sympathetic allies to fight a perceived common enemy.

It’s too bad their premises are misguided from the get go. Even worse that they’ll use flawed arguments to great effect when lobbying governments.

About Aardvark and the Synaptic Web

This article originally appeared on ScribeMedia.org.

Please visit the original to rant, rave or otherwise discuss.

Related posts:

1. Time to Face the Music
2. The Effects of File Sharing, EU Style
3. MySpace Music Hoping to Strike a (new) Chord with Consumers