I don’t know what will happen tomorrow, but I know it will be different than yesterday. Obvious, right? Even more obvious, the way we live today is different than 5, 10, and 25 years ago. This is how life works. So why do so many smart people want everything to stay the same.

Richard Corliss for Time Magazine, which alone is having trouble understanding the future of the news business, has several criticisms for Netflix and why it stinks, yet makes certain to contradict himself with his own article. Corliss, a successful movie critic for more than 30 years, has gone blind as to the future and why Netflix is not something to fight, but to embrace. Corliss laments the traditions internet features – no human interaction or leaving the house. Netflix is causing obesity.  It’s also why his local video store closes. Corliss also criticizes Netflix’s wait times (sometimes a whole day) and the dreaded “mail delays and the botched orders.”

Of course, all this is invalidated by Corliss’ own admission that Netflix “has the No. 1 customer-satisfaction rating among online retailers.”  Meaning for all these problems, people really like Netflix and the service it provides (which includes instantly streamed movies to your computer and TV, something he failed to mention).

Corliss, of course, is just about 10 years too late to criticizing Netflix. Does anyone really believe they’ll be renting discs from a store in the next 10 years?

Most of the criticisms against Netflix, Google, YouTube, blogs, and other “new” businesses trends toward the better than/worse now argument from people who were better than/worse now, such as news papers, recording companies, and brick and mortar retailers (and video rentals). But consumers are happy. They have more choice, more convenience, and lower prices leaving them with more time and money to do other things (that’s how an economy grows).

Microsoft’s newest rebranding of its search engine (is this the 3rd?) is coupled with an $80 million marketing campaign and an assortment of TV ads.  These TV ads follow the conventional marketing tactic: define a problem and present a solution.  Problem: Search doesn’t work, offering the wrong results for your query. Solution: Bing, the first decision engine.

But that problem doesn’t exist.

Microsoft’s incredibly annoying ads (and I liked the weird Seinfeld ads) are better suited for the late 1990s when search really didn’t know what words went together or how to best serve results. Now, search works pretty well.

If I search for breakfast or lcd vs. plasma, I get results for breakfast food and which kind of TV to buy (even without putting TV in the search query). This is the same on Google, Yahoo, and yes, Bing, and has been true for about a decade.  So Microsoft’s trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

Mostly, Microsoft’s massive marketing campaign did more to impress the press and investors, who did their part to claim Bing was winning or posing a real threat to Google, which has been shown not to be the case. At best Bing is just a more publicized version of Windows Live. Let’s remember, Google became Google with no marketing at all (and only started advertising a little last year). Having good products helps.

Shockingly, I read newspaper…content. Like most Wednesdays and Sundays, I enjoy Maureen Dowd’s dry wit and political commentary. She’s brilliant and kept me sane during much of the election (except for when she wrote her column in French and Latin). But today, Dowd’s column took aim against a true evil, Google, for destroying newspapers.

Dowd, in skillful style, made no question about Google’s culpability. She just compared Google to Big Brother and said while Google’s C.E.O. Eric Schmidt isn’t Dick Cheney, he isn’t far off.  He hates your privacy, but he hates newspapers more.

Dowd is a columnist, and I love her for her opinions.  But this column ignored the basic economics and facts of newspapers’ relationship with Google.  She makes it sound like Google it’s just taking content, posting it, and then laughing as newspapers suffer. She writes “Google is in a battle royal over whether it has the right to profit so profligately from newspaper content at a time when journalism is in such jeopardy…[Schmidt] declines to pony up money, noting that newspapers could opt out of giving their content to Google free and adding, ‘We actually like making our own money for obviously good capitalist reasons.’”

But Google does not take newspaper content or post it (with the exception of Associated Press content which it explicitly pays for), Google just links to the content.  Google, in fact, only added ads to its News search the beginning of this year. Before that, Google made no money directly from news search. But either way, Google just links to news articles.  It helps people find the news articles they want.  Google sends thousands if not millions of people to newspapers through these links.

But Dowd, instead of realizing how much Google increases the value of her content, tries to paint them as just a step behind Dick Cheney in taking over the world.

Newspapers as a whole need to stop looking for people to blame (Techdirt has the excellent point that Craigslist deserves just as much if not more blame for “stealing” all those classified ads it doesn’t charge for).  Dowd is just another newspaper veteran looking to protect newspapers without asking if there’s a better way.  Just because you’ve always done it one way, doesn’t mean business can’t evolve.  Look at how newspapers used to do business – they lost money. Weird.

After years of watching blogs and online news sites grow and prosper, you’d hope the news industry would see the potential and not the end.  Unfortunately, all the posturing of the past few years is exploding as the Associated Press and some news leaders are basically declaring war on the internet.

I haven’t been a fan of the Associated Press, who for a news organization, has surprising distain for fair use (except when it suits AP). This week, the non-profit organization announced it will police the web for anyone pirating news content. This is not limited to copying full articles, but anyone partial copies or even sentences and headlines, targeting aggregators like Google News, Digg, and many others.  As part of a coordinated assault, News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch put it succinctly: “Should we be allowing Google to steal all our copyrights? Thanks, but no thanks.”

But Google and aggregators are not stealing your copyrights. It’s called free publicity. Just because someone else benefits by publicizing you isn’t bad or stealing.  It’s the way the internet works.

The other ironic part of AP’s strategy is to make sure search engines post “the original source or the most authoritative source” first in it’s results. Of course, AP wants to do this by pressuring Google rather than building good SEO websites and encouraging linking to their articles (since Google ranks authority, partly, by how many incoming links you have). So aggregators and linking is bad, but special treatment from search engines, like a special section prioritizing news outlets is okay. And sounds a lot like Google News. Techmeme editor-in-chief Robert Thomson points out the Wall Street Journal and New York Times make use of aggregators themselves, linking to other outlet’s content.  The New York Times was even sued over its linking practices.

Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt spoke to newspaper publishers, urging them to think about the consumers, saying “if you piss off enough of them you will not have any more.” His point is newspapers need to address the needs of consumers, not fight against the way the market is evolving. Aggregators and link sharing is how the internet works – and both make content easier to find and more valuable to the person finding it.  Newspapers spent years hiding behind pay walls and found that didn’t work (though it seems it won’t stop them from trying again).

Also part of the news industry’s problem is an attachment to the medium paper.  As Michael Masnick writes: “It’s like saying ‘how to reinvent the horse-drawn carriage’ rather than ‘how do we improve transportation’”.  Charlotte Hall, an editor from the Orlando Sentinel, says:

It stops the clock once a day and takes an assessment, offering the kind of in-depth and analytical work that the 24/7 breaking news world on the Web cannot provide. Print is good at the things the Web is not good at–watchdog, explanatory, enterprise, narrative storytelling.

But Masnick notes that nothing Hall says print is good at can’t be done on the web. Newspapers are trying to convince people that if newspapers all go out of business, there will no news. All those television networks seem to be absent in this dialogue. But this is not the case.  Newspapers can be replaced by news websites.  Websites do some things better; paper does some things better, but neither matters when consumers are more and more choosing to get their news on websites.  The customer is always right, unless, it seems, it destroys your century old business model.

I don’t think paper will completely disappear. Some people still like the tangible product, so there is a market to sell to.  But overall the market is demanding evolution, and if the current players do not want to fill the market demand, someone else will.

Arriving late to the internet revolution, Microsoft seems more interested in blocking the competition rather than building a long term business.  The software giant has already spent months paying people to use its search engine rather than convince them its a better product. But more payoffs are on the way.

Microsoft is paying or offering free software to developing countries to use its products rather than free alternatives like Linux (though Microsoft denies specific examples).  Microsoft is discovering the high price it charges for Windows and Office are pushing poor countries toward free and cheap alternatives. Instead of realizing the long term implications, Microsoft is hoping to lock in these customers with big payoffs now hoping they’ll pay in the future (even though they still won’t be able to afford Microsoft’s prices).  This is not a new business model, but it’s a nice way to blow millions of dollars (don’t need that research and development money anyway).

Further, to stave off Google’s free cell phone operating system, Android, Microsoft is looking to payoff cellular providers to use its expensive alternative. Steven Ballmer showed (once again) how disconnected he is from the realities of the software world when he said about Google’s Android “I don’t really understand their strategy. Maybe somebody else does.” I do: Google’s investing in a long term strategy, increasing the value of Google search and other Google products. It’s a way to make more money (even if that money is not from Android licenses).

The truth is Microsoft is still relevant and obviously has a place in the market.  The Xbox brand, with all its foibles, is a refreshing example of Microsoft’s innovation and willingness to take risks.  Even Xbox has relied on massive payoffs to game developers to push its way into the market – but that’s not a bad thing when it’s part of a long-term strategy. Microsoft wants Xbox to be profitable on its own merits, something that’s harder to say about Windows and its other products.

Even Microsoft’s branding strategy failed because of a lack of a long term plan – one that the company had faith in.  After three commercials, Microsoft pulls its controversial Seinfeld ads because bloggers didn’t like them.  But they were talking about them! People watched them over and over again to try to understand them.  But that understand would have come later on.  Instead, the new “I’m a PC” commercials reveal Microsoft’s lack of faith in their own branding and instead let their adversary, Apple, dictate the conversation (just ask McCain how well “change” worked for him).

I’m still an avid Microsoft customer (I’m writing this post on Live Writer).  But the company needs to realign itself with the new technology realities.  Branding, reminding customers how much we’ve trusted MIcrosoft all these years (even though they were fun to hate), shows they can still be relevant in our lives, for business and fun.  Paying off customers, buying also badly run companies (Yahoo), and criticizing successful competitors you don’t understand are not recipes for success.  Long term planning and real investment are.

Last week Google announced a $125 million settlement with book publishers to allow the search engine to copy out of print books and make snippets available with options to buy. The settlement avoids a lawsuit brought by the Author’s Guild and Association of American Publishers.

While many are praising the decision, I’m hesitant for several reasons. While it’s excellent to make thousands of out-of-print books available for research, the many restrictions, cost questions, and lack of legal precedent make this a lost opportunity for so much more.

Harvard University criticized the program for these reasons, going to far as to back out of the deal already in place before the settlement.  The university pointed out libraries, who would pay an unspecified price for full access, would be restricted to one terminal with access to the books and many copies would be missing pictures. Downloading would still not be allowed.

Second, Michael Masnick points out Google had previously stated it wanted these lawsuits to make better laws, using its massive war chest to fight lawsuits others couldn’t afford to. By paying off book publishers, Google not only lets go of an opportunity to stand up for fair use, but also opens itself up to other companies looking for an easy pay off. Viacom, in the middle of a $1 billion lawsuit with Google, used this settlement to claim Google learn its lesson in relation to honoring copyrights. Google’s made similar concessions, like paying off the Associated Press just to link to its stories, leading other news organizations to want their cut.

I’ve already found the limitations of Google Book Search reasons not to use it. Google is certainly trying to make the search mroe valuable for users, using an opt-out program to make sure orphan works can be accessed so this is better than nothing. But once again, book publishers are ignoring the value Google is adding to their books, books that are out-of-print and wouldn’t find an audience without Google’s scanning and searching.  Google is adding value publishers should want and be seeking out. But because of these restrictions (and cost), fewer people will be able to find these books and thus fewer people will be likely to pay.

A paper written by Haim Mendelson from Stanford Graduate School of Business and Deishin Lee from Harvard Business School guides students and businesses on how to fight open source business models and technology.

The two professors say being first to market, improving product features, and keeping the product closed are needed to combat the open source market - the way to make money against competitors who sell their products for free.  By keeping the product closed, open source networks can’t use the product to improve their own.

It’s sad to see such misguided lessons coming from two smart people and worse, teachers in a business school.  While it’s fine for commercial companies to compete with open source initiatives, Mendelson and Lee seem to recommend commercial as superior to open source even though several business models show free can be very profitable (e.g. Linux, Mozilla, MySQL, Wordpress).  Their example of a good commercial release, Microsoft Office, ignores how Office didn’t compete with open source upon release and further ignores how Microsoft is adapting to compete now with Open Office, Google Docs, and Zoho (all are free, only Open Office is fully open source).  Microsoft has released new specifications on its format types for anyone to include in software and is considering a subscription-based model for future releases.

Mendelson and Lee’s emphasis on being first to market is always good, no matter your business model, and improving product features is likewise necessity.  The problem commercial software has and will continue to have is open source, or at least open platforms, just offer more for less. Apple’s iPhone, another example of Mendelson and Lee’s, began by refusing developers any access to the system, telling them build for the web browser. A year later developers get to build applications with harsh restrictions, sometimes issued after applications are finished being built.  Google Android is coming out, fully open source and free for phone manufactures, has already attracted sour iPhone developers and has a huge software library waiting for its clientele - the first Android phone is still three weeks away from release.

Closed systems are a dying breed. It’s a slow death.  Trade secrets will always exist and there’s nothing wrong with that. What business students and professors should recognize is the landscape is evolving. Free and open aren’t bad words, but should be embraced by the next generation of business leaders.  Encouraging more of the same closed, walled garden thinking only slows innovation (see Microsoft) while free and open are winning the market and the profits (see Google).

After Google Video and Microsoft’s PlayForSure showed what not to do, Yahoo Music decided it wanted to be an example for what not to do in digital media.  Yahoo announced it will discontinue support for its DRM at the end of September, locking DRMed tracks to a single computer.

Microsoft tried to discontinue its PlayForSure DRM a few months ago, but has agreed to leave it up for a few more years.  Google Video discontinued its DRM, offering refunds for all purchases.  Only after some outcry did Yahoo agree to refund customers or provide DRM-free tracks.

All this ends up being expensive for everyone involved, whether its maintaining servers or refunding every customer you’ve ever had. Soon consumers will realize DRM deprives them of value they expect, like owning the music tracks they paid for.  Of course, consumers can always go to file-sharing networks which are free and DRM-free. That’s the competition, remember.

Shameless plug: I’ll be at the Flow Conference Oct. 9th in Austin, Tex. speaking on a roundtable about music and DRM in case anyone’s in the area.

The judge presiding over the Viacom vs. YouTube case has ruled Google must hand over IP addresses and user names of its users and a list of the videos they watched, whether on YouTube or embedded on other sites (an estimated 12 terabytes).  Viacom is asking for this information to prove YouTube deals the majority in infringing material.

The result of this ruling is a privacy nightmare.  The Electronic Frontier Foundation has argued the judge’s ruing violates, ironically, the Videotape Privacy Protection Act that says the government can’t snoop your rental history (library books are fair game).  Google, however, has argued before that IP addresses aren’t personal data because they aren’t attached to a single person, says Google “in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot [identify a user].”

Unfortunately, the IP address can get you pretty close.  It identifies the computer and location, including households and laptops.  The result isn’t just embarrassing users who watched far too much Dog on Skateboard videos.  It’s what does Viacom, the RIAA, and MPAA do with this list once its public.  Most of their effort in suing customers was finding the IP addresses.  Now Google’s handing them over on a silver hard drive.

Viacom obviously wants to analyze Google’s data itself, ignoring a study by Vidmeter.com that found copyrighted materials accounting for a fraction of YouTube viewership.  Based on their sample of more than 1.5 billion views of 6,725 videos, 9.23 percent were taken down.  Those remove videos accounted for only 5.93 percent of views.  You can read the full study here.  Viacom itself accounted for 2.37 percent of of views, the highest of for all content owners.  How they monetize that to $1 billion would be magic.

[Via Mathew Ingram}

Last week, the Associated Press sent DMCA takedown notices to the Drudge Retort, a user-submitted news aggregator. Drudge Retort featured seven A.P. articles with headlines (often user-generated, not original), less than 100 word quotes, and a link to the original article which, according to the A.P.’s letter, did not fall under fair use.

The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of “fair use.” AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes “hot news” misappropriation.

The blogosphere spent the weekend lambasting the A.P. for overstepping the bounds of copyrights. The A.P.’s VP and Director of Strategy Jim Kennedy answered with a copy and paste job on dozens of blogs (I wonder who owns those comments):

We get concerned, however, when we feel the use is more reproduction than reference, or when others are encouraged to cut and paste. That’s not good for original content creators; nor is it consistent with the link-based culture of the Internet that bloggers have cultivated so well.

To further remedy the backlash, the A.P. announced today a set of guidelines for bloggers in linking to A.P. articles.

The Associated Press has been reliably archaic in evolving to the internet age. The A.P. pressured Google over its News search engine, eventually convincing Google to pay the A.P. for its stories and pictures. Google had no obligation to pay the A.P. and likely led to other newspapers suing Google for their share and encouraging the A.P. to think it can completely control its content.

Today’s New York Times quoted Kennedy recognizing their initial approach to blogs might have been “heavy-handed.” A.P. executives met to revise their strategy which will likely appear in their usage guidelines. Bloggers, just like mainstream news sources (including the A.P.), won’t accept guidelines on how to use content. The A.P. does not get to set special rules on its content, same as the MLB and ABC and any other organization. The point of fair use is that it doesn’t require permission from the copyright holder. The more companies accept these restrictions, the more other organizations will try to expand the power of their copyrights.

A.P.’s recent moves will inspire bloggers to avoid A.P. stories, instead leading traffic to competitors who want free promotion. The result will be a less influential A.P. as other news services embrace internet technology instead of fight it.