Virgin Media Phorm Webwise Adverts [Updated: See Post No. 1, 77, 102 & 797]

[vicz]

Originally Posted by R Jones

...

Dear Sir or Madam:
Copryright
Pursuant to recent correspondence from yourselves, I wish to advise you that I have plans to copy large sections of material on websites from BT Group plc, and put them up on my own websites. I am presuming that there are no copyright objections to this.
I am also planning to “scrape” the sites of both DABS and the BT Shop on a regular basis, and then use the data therein to offer the items at a lower price from my own retail outlet. I may just use the page copies from the BT Shop and DABS sites as they stand, but with altered contact details so shoppers can contact my own sales outlet instead of yours.
I was worried about copyright issues, when I was planning this but your reassurances that “Our position is that as a general proposition, by placing a webpage on the internet, the website owner is granting an implied licence to reproduce/copy. We believe that the taking of a temporary copy for the purposes of Webwise will fall within that implied licence and also believe in any event that the proposed operation of Webwise is permitted under S.28A of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”
I was also worried that there might be conditions on the website forbidding me taking such copies, but I now see that even if a website owner puts up that sort of notice, it is not necessary according to your legal position, for anyone to pay the slightest bit of attention to it.
I’m delighted to have this opportunity to save myself all the tedious and expensive market research and web page design fees – now I can just rip off someone else’s work and use it for my own commercial purposes. Can I assume you are happy about me doing this? If you have no objections I can just go ahead in 14 days time? Of course if you object I will observe (and publish) your objections. But you will need to explain why what applies to the BT Retail goose, doesn’t apply also to the BT customer gander.
Unless you object specifically I shall assume implied consent to publish your reply.
Sincerely,

Simply brilliant

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Quite simply BT made the rules but can they play by them or is it all a whirling vortex of hot air

[feesch]

Guys, simply loving your comments, arguments and feedback! Apologies for not replyig sooner, but I travel continually.

Ok - I posted the blog with a deliberate middle-ground approach and yes am happy to provoke.

Like may of you i am a technologist who finds himself exposed to a many steps ahead of where the rest of the consumers are.

Yes I work in digital advertsing. Yes I am against being tracked unlawfully.

• I do not agree with Oystercard's RFID scam that came in without question (you do realise these things can be picked up from half a mile away I assume - not the 'touch-in, touch-out' marketing lie that was fed to us all).
  
• I do not agree with the DVLA's descision to put RFID chips in all numberplates without telling us exaclty why. (watch out next time you take your car in for an MOT)
  
• I am aware of the evidence of how many people are more concious of advertising now they skip them - they speed up and slow down at certain points not wishing to miss their programme, and the 3 sec spots either side of normal TV ads have huge impact as a result.
  
• I also have developed some of the most successful behaviourally sequenced adverts online, and seen the global results of how users not only welcome them, but give away personal data within them in order to personalise the ads. But it was done in what I believe WAS ethical, because it followed an opt-in model, so I know it can be done.

I can also see how the dots will be joined. I drive my car, past a billboard which will show me a targeted advert and a flashing icon on my GPS to lead me to the shop - based on the fact I put a can of coke in the bin, or based on the fact I was just searching for Ski-holidays. This links GPS, RFID to Internet streams to show me related adverts. Its a huge business opportunity!!! And F*&CKING scary big-brother world that few out there realise is coming (and here in trials).

Now I can see what Phorm are doing, but it is not purely them, - there are many other types of technologies that are part of this and helping close the loop.

We have opened Pandora's box that is a fact, and I know many of you in technology can see what I see, but the problem we face is do we STOP all advancement (knowing people probably would rather have personalised media content and relevant adverts), or will they change the law to make it acceptable (bearing in mind you now have RFID in UK passports! and your 'wave-and-pay' Barclaycards are backdoor ID cards)

I have seen various movements to ban RFID, ban Phorm, and what have you - but I am also a realist. I do not think you are going to stop this, as this is merely a begininning phase and there is to much pressure to get to a crazy utopia as I outlined above.

But if we are going to make an impact for the correct reasons, then we need to tackle the issue from both sides of the argument, because in court, money talks - and government security and advertsing bucks of big brands will have a huge persuasion (and both will be sited for development and installation of technologies).

All the time people personalise homepages using RSS feeds, use Amazon and iTunes to recommend content - we are going to have a fight against people who will quote "see we are just giving consumers what they want and who cares about a few Geeks... they will get over it..."

[JackSon]

Originally Posted by feesch

Guys, simply loving your comments, arguments and feedback! Apologies for not replyig sooner, but I travel continually.

Ok - I posted the blog with a deliberate middle-ground approach and yes am happy to provoke.

Like may of you i am a technologist who finds himself exposed to a many steps ahead of where the rest of the consumers are.

Yes I work in digital advertsing. Yes I am against being tracked unlawfully.

• I do not agree with Oystercard's RFID scam that came in without question (you do realise these things can be picked up from half a mile away I assume - not the 'touch-in, touch-out' marketing lie that was fed to us all).
• I do not agree with the DVLA's descision to put RFID chips in all numberplates without telling us exaclty why. (watch out next time you take your car in for an MOT)
• I am aware of the evidence of how many people are more concious of advertising now they skip them - they speed up and slow down at certain points not wishing to miss their programme, and the 3 sec spots either side of normal TV ads have huge impact as a result.
• I also have developed some of the most successful behaviourally sequenced adverts online, and seen the global results of how users not only welcome them, but give away personal data within them in order to personalise the ads. But it was done in what I believe WAS ethical, because it followed an opt-in model, so I know it can be done.

I can also see how the dots will be joined. I drive my car, past a billboard which will show me a targeted advert and a flashing icon on my GPS to lead me to the shop - based on the fact I put a can of coke in the bin, or based on the fact I was just searching for Ski-holidays. This links GPS, RFID to Internet streams to show me related adverts. Its a huge business opportunity!!! And F*&CKING scary big-brother world that few out there realise is coming (and here in trials).

Now I can see what Phorm are doing, but it is not purely them, - there are many other types of technologies that are part of this and helping close the loop.

We have opened Pandora's box that is a fact, and I know many of you in technology can see what I see, but the problem we face is do we STOP all advancement (knowing people probably would rather have personalised media content and relevant adverts), or will they change the law to make it acceptable (bearing in mind you now have RFID in UK passports! and your 'wave-and-pay' Barclaycards are backdoor ID cards)

I have seen various movements to ban RFID, ban Phorm, and what have you - but I am also a realist. I do not think you are going to stop this, as this is merely a begininning phase and there is to much pressure to get to a crazy utopia as I outlined above.

But if we are going to make an impact for the correct reasons, then we need to tackle the issue from both sides of the argument, because in court, money talks - and government security and advertsing bucks of big brands will have a huge persuasion (and both will be sited for development and installation of technologies).

All the time people personalise homepages using RSS feeds, use Amazon and iTunes to recommend content - we are going to have a fight against people who will quote "see we are just giving consumers what they want and who cares about a few Geeks... they will get over it..."

Above granted; however there is the attitude of the group which cannot be overcome here. I myself think we would sooner look back on this in years to come and be able to say we fought and didn't win, rather than say we didn't fight because we couldn't win. There really is enough at stake here to warrant such resistance, even if it may seem futile to some within the industry. There is also the equal chance that our concerns can be catered into a future incarnation of the concept, one that is compatible with the law, and our requirements concerning PII.

[Tarquin L-Smythe]

Hurrah for the few Geeks so far they have managed to have stopped the PLC's so far.

[Rchivist]

Originally Posted by Tarquin L-Smythe

Hurrah for the few Geeks so far they have managed to have stopped the PLC's so far.

Now TLS - you KNOW that the delay in the Webwise trials have just been because of a few technical problems and are nothing to do with any anti-Webwise campaign.

BT have said so, so it must be true. I've got an email from Emma to prove it.

[HaveToBeAnon]

Originally Posted by feesch

I have seen various movements to ban RFID, ban Phorm, and what have you - but I am also a realist. I do not think you are going to stop this, as this is merely a begininning phase and there is to much pressure to get to a crazy utopia as I outlined above.

You talk some sense, but I think on this point you are wrong. Webwise is a step too far. The backlash has already started, and this is before a trial. If the trial ever happens, (and I think theres a very good chance it won't) the outcry will be so immense that a full release will never happen.

We are winning! Phorm is dying. No income, no profit, not a lot of cash reserves, and who is going to invest, seeing the way its going? I give it 3 months tops.

[number6]

Originally Posted by R Jones

Dear Sir or Madam:
Copryright
Pursuant to recent correspondence from yourselves, I wish to advise you that I have plans to copy large sections of material on websites from BT Group plc, and put them up on my own websites. I am presuming that there are no copyright objections to this.
I am also planning to “scrape” the sites of both DABS and the BT Shop on a regular basis, and then use the data therein to offer the items at a lower price from my own retail outlet. I may just use the page copies from the BT Shop and DABS sites as they stand, but with altered contact details so shoppers can contact my own sales outlet instead of yours.
I was worried about copyright issues, when I was planning this but your reassurances that “Our position is that as a general proposition, by placing a webpage on the internet, the website owner is granting an implied licence to reproduce/copy. We believe that the taking of a temporary copy for the purposes of Webwise will fall within that implied licence and also believe in any event that the proposed operation of Webwise is permitted under S.28A of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.”
I was also worried that there might be conditions on the website forbidding me taking such copies, but I now see that even if a website owner puts up that sort of notice, it is not necessary according to your legal position, for anyone to pay the slightest bit of attention to it.
I’m delighted to have this opportunity to save myself all the tedious and expensive market research and web page design fees – now I can just rip off someone else’s work and use it for my own commercial purposes. Can I assume you are happy about me doing this? If you have no objections I can just go ahead in 14 days time? Of course if you object I will observe (and publish) your objections. But you will need to explain why what applies to the BT Retail goose, doesn’t apply also to the BT customer gander.
Unless you object specifically I shall assume implied consent to publish your reply.
Sincerely,

Although not directly relevant Ryanair's successful application for an injunction preventing screen scraping and their pending case in Dublin may eventually make life difficult for BT. See [URL="http://www.out-law.com/page-9253"]

[pseudonym]

Originally Posted by feesch

(knowing people probably would rather have personalised media content and relevant adverts),

The majority of people would rather not be spied on, than have "relevant adverts".

http://www.nma.co.uk/Logon/ResourceB...ntentContinues

UK consumers have a deep mistrust of behavioural targeting and would ditch ISPs using it, research commissioned by NMA has found. The report discovered almost two-thirds (65%) of UK adults would leave their ISP if it introduced be_havioural targeting, while 81% were in favour of opting out from receiving targeted online advertising

[feesch]

Originally Posted by JohnHorb

Just to re-emphasise what others have said, this campaign is not about advertising per se. Most of us 'techies' are perfectly capable of blocking adverts if we want to. It is about the unauthorised interception of ALL our (unencrypted) web traffic, including interception of web pages where the web site has explicitly denied permission to intercept for commercial purposes. This is no different to the post office reading our mail and sending us targeted junk mail based on the content. Some people have indicated that intercepting web traffic is more like reading postcards than opening and reading sealed letters, but I'd be pretty upset if the Post Office were routinely reading post cards for commercial purposes, and would look at some way of sealing letters so they could only be opened by the recipient (equivalent to encrypting web communications).

But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.

John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…

I hear your frustration, and equally share it – but I also want you to see the much bigger picture (without negating any of your valid views)

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash. Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result. And what happened to the ISPs – Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago, which is when the TV model was born. We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi).

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

Create demand, drop the price, fuel the masses… Look at iPhone G3 for a case in point. Its marketing.

So human rights, privacy issues are all thrown into this argument (and rightfully so I equally want to make sure these are given adequate consideration and why I personally went to a Parliament debate last month) but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising. No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).

So you think Phorm will die? Did DoubleClick when they were taken to court for tracking people in the 90’s – urrrmmm how much did Google pay for them last year?!

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

[CWH]

I wonder if any use can be made of this tool?

It appear to be designed to check for ISP interference in any transiting traffic.

Colin

[phormwatch]

feesch-

Welcome back feesch. Any chance you could answer my questions regarding Phorm's conduct in my post #12996?

"I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?" - Feesch

You keep claiming to know what people want but you provide no evidence. This is exactly what BT have done and it flies in the face of the facts. Like BT you claim this widespread desire for "relevent" advertising and you write very nicely but once you remove the pretty prose and unsupported claims then there's nothing left but one of a handful of people who sees a way to make a quick buck at our expense.

So far, 16,000 people have signed a Downing St petition to oppose this one system and there's no sign of anyone outside of the ISPs and the advertising industry actually supporting it's use.

Your claims are simply not supported by the facts but we're used to you people by now so we'll just leave you to get on with making some more money while we concentrate on doing the right thing.

For everyone else reading this - just remember that advertsing people like Feesch manipulate facts for a living.

Don't be taken in by the "it's too late" garbage in Feesch's posts. Nothing could be further from truth or we would all be using these systems, the British and American ISPs would not running scared as they are at present and people like him wouldn't be crawling around a forum like this trying to run a pro-Phorm advertising campaign. All his posts prove is that the people with nothing but £££ signs in their heads are getting desparate.

We are doing the right thing for the right reasons and we are winning.

[SelfProtection]

Originally Posted by feesch

But Google Mail is doing just this, and where is the huge outcry? Facebook did just this with Beacon - and haven't pulled it, merely adapted it.

John, sorry, but it it is an advertising argument – and you telling me you can block all ads everywhere – you are having a laugh! Everything will have a digital connection – your Mobile, PC, TV, Outdoor – so pop-up blockers are going to have to get a lot more specific to block out all ads you are exposed to during your day…

I hear your frustration, and equally share it – but I also want you to see the much bigger picture (without negating any of your valid views)

Netscape floated in 1995 and started the dotcom rush. No-one could turn data into hard cash and hence dotcom crash. Google stood up with pay-per-click and turned the tide – and look at the superbrand they have become as result. And what happened to the ISPs – Like, where is Compuserve now?! AOL were forced to change their model too as people would not pay huge rates for accessing media/content online. Advertising was (as always) the basis for releasing content to the masses.

The internet was not designed to cope with huge volumes of video based content – and video is where the big money is. Big money to create and big money to distribute. Communication is an aspect of digital growth, entertainment content is the core desire – and hence why communication companies like BT, Sky and Virgin are becoming quad-play (communication, access, content, gaming).

Now BT Vision is about taking those media streams and making them dynamic and personally relevant. Dynamic advertising insertion that will be personable to the user is equally key as we all watch TV very different to how we did 40 years ago, which is when the TV model was born. We have more choice, which means harder for advertisers to lock-on to any person so broadcast TV is under threat as advertisers won’t pay as can no longer target based on viewing habits, users don’t want to pay BBC license fees, and as result no money coming in to create and distribute content – that is why they are looking for smarter alternatives, such as mobile phone in’s and crap reality programmes to create revenue to create decent TV programmes..

That is why they want Phorm - not just for 'website traffic' but to track what you are doing when you are communicating, surfing and watching TV content (hence Sky requirement of telephone line to supplement a receiver dish) and not only serve you relevant content from the plethora of channel choices out there now, but also to insert targeted and relevant ads into those TV streams, and as a result are happy to give away (eventually) free web access. (BT is planning on rolling out free wi-fi).

Google and Microsoft spent billions last year on acquiring ad technology for a reason. I know I work for their competitor. And all of us are in discussions not with website owners, but TV and mobile operators about how to maintain quality content that users want – and results show that people will choose ads over paying for content if given a choice.

Create demand, drop the price, fuel the masses… Look at iPhone G3 for a case in point. Its marketing.

So human rights, privacy issues are all thrown into this argument (and rightfully so I equally want to make sure these are given adequate consideration and why I personally went to a Parliament debate last month) but the bottom line is if you want to carry on watching TV – and Hi-Def TV – someone has to pay for it. So unless you have some clever argument of why you will pay thousands a year for internet access to cope with the video demands, and can prove others will do likewise, the only result is to look to advertising. No one likes crap or irrelevant ads, so how can web 3.0 create automated ways of doing just that? Welcome to the Phorm debate – as I said, it is DoubleClick cookies (content - web 1.0) and Facebook Beacon (communication - web 2.0) leading to Phorm (convergence – web 3.0).

So you think Phorm will die? Did DoubleClick when they were taken to court for tracking people in the 90’s – urrrmmm how much did Google pay for them last year?!

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

feesch

Just look at your post it is far too Media Orientated, it ignores Real World Issues & Values, Economics & Social Practices!

To me, Apart from the Very Obvoius Techical Issues any system like this will encounter.

"You & others are acting somewhat in the manner of the Stock Market Boom when someone came up with the "magic" formula placing risk on both sides of the equation & then ignoring it!"

Too many people, scientists included tend to completely ignore the medium in which the "experiment" is taking place!

We can't spend enough money on getting this to acheive all it's possible benefits, let alone spending more & more money promoting possibly "tacky goods".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

"Good Products tend to sell themselves with minimal advertising"!

[Dephormation]

Originally Posted by feesch

I have no huge answers, but you are not going to stop this (completely) as long as people want quality and relevant content – so surely will be better if we can think how can we ensure that there is an acceptable line for all parties that delivers relevance whilst maintaining (a degree) of anonymity?

Isn't that how we will win?

Absolutely utterly and completely not. This must be stopped, and stopped completely.

We are talking here about the right to privacy, security, and integrity in data communication services.

ISPs have no business what so ever inspecting the content of those communications, particularly when those communications relate to services which they aren't even supplying (third party web sites).

There is no "acceptable line". ISPs are paid to provide a communication service. Mere conduits. End of story.

Think of it in terms of the Post Office. Should they be entitled to open my mail and insert ads if they think they can make money? No.

Data communications are no different.

I pay my ISP £24.99/mo to provide 30GB of peak traffic, 300GB off peak. They don't need to know what I send/receive or why. Its none of their business. The problem of cost only arises when customers are sold, and therefore expect, an 'unlimited' service. If ISPs choose to sell an 'unlimited' service, then they only have themselves to blame for the consequences... not their customers. If "video is where the big money is" then the big money can fund its own network bandwidth.

But here's another thought too. How does an economy function if you can't guarantee the privacy, security, and integrity of communications?

The way it will function is by resorting to encryption, and suing for copyright infringement.

Where does that leave Phorm? It leaves Phorm with nothing to steal, and a business model that looks as rotten as a barrel of rotten apples.

ISPs have no right to access private communications, no right to corrupt communications traffic, and no right to steal copyright content.