Archive for June, 2008

This was first posted on the MatthewChan.com Blog.

=====================================

One of my pet peeves on the Internet is the phenomena of cybersquatting and domain speculating.  Basically, most cybersquatters are people or companies who register blocks of domains for the purpose of reselling them to end-users or developers who ultimately want to create content around a given domain name.

Because we live in a capitalistic society, I won’t say it is morally or ethically wrong to cybersquat for profit.  However, as a website creator and content developer, I find myself blocked from using many domains that would be appropriate for a project or venture.

If there was a corresponding live website to a registered domain name, it would not bother me so much.  But most of the time when I view a registered domain, it shows nothing or a generic parked page.  That tells me that there are lots of people who either are not developing content for the registered domains or they are cyber-squatting.

There are domains I register and hold on to.  But it is not to resell them.  I have intentions of developing a website around the name.  For the most part, the days of domain speculation are over and yet there are many domains still being sat upon.

With ICANN’s recent expansion announcement, the Internet domain space will soon be expanded to the point where it will become unprofitable to cybersquat.  No longer will we be limited to .com, .net, .org, .info, etc.  We potentially will have a limitless supply of domain names with the creation of new top-level domains.

Up to now, I have been a strong proponent of getting a .com in a domain name.  However, I have softened my opinion on this because I have registered some .org domains as appropriate.  The biggest problem years back was that most of the public was ignorant of Internet conventions.  So if you did not have a .com, you were not as credible and you ran the danger of less sophisticated users not being able to recognize your Internet address as an accessible website.

I am tired of cyber-squattting and domain speculators.  In my eyes, they profit but they really add no value to the big picture.  With domain names soon becoming plentiful and diverse, the power shifts back to the website creators and content developers.  That is what people want, that is what I want to provide.

We are in the middle of 2008.  ICANN claims they will start accepting new applications around this time in 2009.  I predict that sometime in 2010, the domain space will begin to widen.  I also predict that cybersquatters and domain speculators are going to start dumping their domains when they realize it is going to be quite unprofitable unless they have a super-unique domain name.

As far as I am concerned, there isn’t a project I have worked on that I have not been able to be creative and work around cyber-squatters.  I simply will not allow them to profit from me.

Cybersquatting and domain speculating will soon become an obsolete and unprofitable thanks to ICANN’s recent decision.  The end, and new beginning, cannot come soon enough for me.  Start watching domain names not being registered next year.  The dumping will start slow but will eventually come fast and furious.

This Amazon Kindle review was first posted on my personal Blog on MatthewChan.com.

===================================================

Since coming back from the 2008 Book Expo America in Los Angeles, I have been wanting to write my review on Amazon’s Kindle.

My relationship with Amazon is multi-faceted.  Like most book lover, my first relationship with Amazon is as a customer.  In my opinion, Amazon has the best website to research and search for books.  It also has the best book community support.

Secondarily, I am an Amazon reseller.  I resell my books and titles through their Amazon Advantage and Amazon Marketplace programs.  Overall, it is a good business relationship.

Essentially, I have grown to like and appreciate Amazon over the years.

With the launch of Amazon Kindle, I find myself as both a publisher and a book reader evaluating the merits of Kindle.  At nearly $400, I am resistant to buying an electronic device to read books.  Although, I love my computer and everything it does, I still like to read old-fashioned books.  I just like the convenience of flipping through pages and basically jumping around at a moment’s notice.  I am still resistant to the idea of being depending on any electronic device to read.  What happens if the device is damaged or lost?

What I don’t like about books, however, is that they are subject to wear and tear.  They are bulky and take up a lot of shelf space when you have hundreds of books like I do.  They are a terror to move when packed into boxes.  It is an annual ritual to purge books and either sell them or give them away.  And it is difficult to find specific content within a book even with an index.

As a publisher, I would like to do away with the printing of books and sell more content electronically.  There is no hard printing costs, no warehousing costs, and it saves lots of trees environmentally. Having said all that, you will have a sense of my inherent biases and internal battle with Kindle.

At BEA, I was quite happy to see Amazon with their large Kindle booth.  Amazon intelligently and insightfully understood that there is still a huge portion of book readers who have never physically seen and fiddled with the Kindle.  Unless you are on the cutting edge and don’t mind blowing $400 on an untried device, most people including me did not want to spend that money without actually having some hands-on experience with it.

The folks at the Amazon Kindle booth seemed friendly.  They were ready to engage anyone interested in playing with a Kindle.  I awkwardly too the device and admired its design.  It was light and clean looking.  It had a relatively simple and elegant look.  The quality of the reading screen even when viewed at a steep away angle was quite good.

For the most part, Kindle was easy to navigate.  I goofed a few times but I attributed that to my user unfamiliarity.  The browsing of Kindle-titles was easy.  The Amazon employee pointed out that there were still many titles not available on Kindle but work was aggressively being done to get more titles.  As a publisher, I agreed with that.  Amazon has been heavily courting publishers to release their content on the Kindle format.  For me, I am interested but I have taken a wait-and-see attitude.  I will get into why in another post.

Back to the actual Kindle device, what I did not like about Kindle were the placement of the long page-turning buttons on both the left and right side of the device.  I am guessing the idea of having a long elongated button is to accommodate different ways and styles that readers would hold Kindle.  Unfortunately, I found it difficult to hold and adjust the Kindle with accidentally pressing one of the side buttons.

There simply was no easy way to hold the Kindle in my left or right hand.  If I wanted to adjust my seating position or get up, I found myself accidentally hitting the side buttons.  The Amazon employee said that once you get used to it, that would no longer happen.  That may be true but I feel the side buttons are too exposed.  The designers gave too much space.

My view of Kindle, like other electronic hardware or software, that this is a version 1.0.  I asked about future revisions and that subject seemed to make the person helping me uncomfortable.  I am guessing her job was to focus on selling the Kindle in the here and now, not focusing on a possible Kindle 2.0.

I speculate that there will inevitably be a Kindle 2.0.  There will be design enhancements and improvements to the hardware based on the feedback Amazon is receiving.  Perhaps this review will be one they will refer to.  They are likely to improve the battery life and viewing options such as including color.  However, I believe color will come in Kindle 3.0.  I think it is too much of a jump from Kindle 1.0 to Kindle 2.0.  I don’t think Amazon is quite ready to so quickly obsolete Kindle 1.0.

Overall, I enjoyed my user experience with Kindle.  I understand why there seems to be a growing bubble of support for it.  It really is a good device.  But the downsides is still a deterrent for me.  Kindle has to come down in price more.  Even at 50% off, it would be $200.  I am not sure I would still buy it at that price point.  There has to be more titles.  And the annoying side buttons need to be resized, relocation, or redesigned.

It is ironic that I do want Kindle to be successful.  And yet, for me as an individual reader, I still greatly prefer my books.

When I first received my Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter on Monday, June 16, I took prompt measures to be proactive.  One of those proactive steps was to face this issue head-on.  I called the phone number 800-272-4170 twice and left one message.  My voice message was professional and courteous.  I was letting them know I acknowledged their letter and was quickly taking corrective measures.  I also told them I welcomed a call to discuss the situation.

Chloe Surdyk called late Wed. afternoon.  It was actually a cordial conversation.  I did my best to find common ground.  I understand their need to protect their copyrights and go after people but I did not agree with their tactics.

I told her I especially did not agree with her rationale that victims of Indian web designers should have to pay Getty Images especially when I contracted for a web banner, not specific images.  I also had little or no say in the selection of any images, only whether I liked a web banner or not.

She offered me a lower settlement (from the original $1,300) of $800-something.  I told her I did not agree with her and it was likely we would have to agree to disagree.  In the conversation, I told her I was not ignorant of the law and due legal process.  I have been to court many times to be a plaintiff and occasionally a defendant.  I was not simply going to “roll over”.  I told her I did my research on the Internet on Getty Images and I was informed of their upcoming tactics.  I told her I was not going to sit still and that I would likely publicize my interactions with her and her company.

My sense of embarrassment over this is substantially lower than my sense of outrage at their attitude.  Surprisingly, during most of the conversation, Chloe was cordial.  Even towards the end of the conversation, she said she would put into her notes to give me another 14-days to consider her offer.  Chloe even gave me her direct phone office line:  206-925-6779.

In my mind, there was no way I was going to “settle” with them.  I mentioned to her that she would likely have to sue my company if she wanted anything.  For now, I told her we would simply agree to disagree.

My next move is to get my “official reply” sent out by Certified Mail within the next couple of days.  I am biding my time as I continue to do more research.

=================================================

If you want to learn more about this case, visit ExtortionLetterInfo.com.

In light of my unwilling involvement with Getty Images, as president of my publishing company, I have decided to take the proactive and defensive measure and gathering and reporting information relating to the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter.

In fact, this whole fiasco is so outrageous that I have named this the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter Extortion Scheme.  I think this term truly fits what they are doing.  The information I am finding on the Internet is simply outrageous.

I have launched ExtortionLetterInfo.com so that my blogs don’t get overrun with the Getty Settlement Demand Letter discussions.  If you are interested in what is happening with this, go visit the website.  Otherwise, I will keep this blog focused on what it was meant for, commentary on the publishing industry.

This post was first published on the MatthewChan.com Blog site.

==========================================

Today, I received a Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter basically trying to extort from me a payment of $1,300 for a bird image that was used on theintrepidway.com website.  If I pay that amount, basically they agree not to sue me or my company.  However, suing and winning are two entirely different issues.

TheIntrepidWay.com currently looks bare because I immediately took down all the web banner graphics to comply with the Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter.

For most of you reading this, you will be like me earlier today.  I had no clue what this was all about.  It would be many hours later until I discovered this extortionistic practice by Getty Images.  But, believe it or not, this issue is relevant to anyone who wants to put up their own website and intend to hire someone to design their graphics and images.

The “short version” of all this is that “Getty Images”, a photo-licensing company, actively sends out Settlement Demand Letters in the U.S., U.K., and Australia to unsuspecting website owners that have intentionally or unintentionally infringed on their copyrighted images.  ON the surface, this sound fine.

In my research, so many website owners are small-business people or companies that contracted web site templates and graphics from graphic artists/designers in India.  Well, apparently, the folks in India have a terrible reputation of stealing U.S. images and incorporating them in their web graphics and template design.

Unsuspecting U.S. website owners who want to improve the appear of their websites buy these web templates and graphics and use them on their websites.  However, months and years later, Getty Images sends this very nasty and threatening letter out essentially holding you fully responsible even if someone else did the crime.  I understand that employers are held responsible for many issues, however, what comes is on the verge of insanity and certainly not even close to reasonable.

If you are legally uninformed, I will tell you, it is a very intimidating letter unless you think this through carefully.  After I calmed down, I took the time to do a Google and Yahoo search on “Getty Images Settlement Demand Letter”. I think if you do the same, you will get a very interesting education.  It is actually devious because Getty Images do not do anyone the courtesy of a Cease and Desist Letter.  Basically, let people know that they did the wrong thing and allow them to correct the situation before you get nasty.

However, in one mailing, they ask you to remove all the infringing images AND ask you to pay this extortionistic amount so they won’t sue you.  What a great scam.  Start sending letters to anyone who made a mistake to correct the mistake but also demand a huge cash payment while you are at it in exchange for you to NOT sue them.  What a great way to make money.  Why bother going to court when you can simply instill the fear of a lawsuit into people?

And even if you have to go to court, there is this small matter of preparing and proving your case.  Is Getty Images (based in Seattle) really going to hire an attorney and sue me in Columbus, Georgia over a $1,300?  Perhaps they will sue for more.  But for what damages?   Punitive damages?  You want to punish someone for doing something they did not intend to do or know it was even occurring?  Those attorney fees might get expensive trying to sue a corporation over state lines.

I have been to court many times as a plaintiff.  It is not easy to simply make stuff or puff your case up.  The judge is usually smart enough to temper a case and not let a ruling get too ridiculous especially in a small claims case.

If it sounds like I am being cavalier, I am not.  I am treating this seriously.  However, I am not simply going to roll over.  I also have a few tricks up my sleeve if they truly decide to push the matter into the court system.  I won’t get into specifics but let’s just say the word will get out very quickly and wide to people, companies, and agencies I have never communicated to before.

I felt the need to post this warning message to warn others.  There are many, many angry people who have received similar letters from Getty’s Images.  I suspect they will want one more web source to consult and discuss this situation.

==================================================

If you want to learn more about this case, visit ExtortionLetterInfo.com.

For years, I have heard how inexpensive Chinese printers are for color printing compared to their U.S. printing counterparts.  And the couple of people I asked years back were very guarded in their answers.  Essentially, I got the feeling they wanted to keep the information to themselves as if it were a trade secret.

Anyone who attended the 2008 Book Expo America convention learned they are no longer a secret.  They were quite well represented.  In fact, printers from Korea, India, and Singapore joined their Chinese counterparts at Book Expo America.  Perhaps I was not looking but I noticed that there were very few American printers at the convention.

It would seem that these international players have gotten aggressive and come to our country and business convention to get some business from American publishers.

I chose to focus on the Chinese printers for a couple of reasons.  First, they appear to be the most price aggressive.  Second, I have a personal interest in eventually doing business in China and working with a Chinese printer would act as one economic bridge into that country.  It does not mean the other international printers could not do a good job but because of my personal interest and preference I am focusing on the Chinese Print Manufacturers.

There was an assortment of booths.  There were a couple that had large booths with very formal presentations.  These companies had Chinese representatives in business suits acting in a very “honorable” fashion.  There were other companies that had very bland and boring booths that were staffed with with people who spoke very little English.

Interestingly, I noticed many of the Chinese companies were concentrated in Shanghai and Guangzhou.  There were others that were in Beijing and Hong Kong.  AS it was explained to me, many of the printers are located outside of the major cities due to lower labor costs.  The samples provided by all the companies were almost always very professional and of high quality.

I have to say, as a whole, the Chinese representatives were very nice people to deal with.  But clearly, there was some cultural and language challenges to overcome on my part.  Although I am a Chinese-American, my conversational Chinese is nearly non-existent.  Fortunately, there was at least one representative that seemed to speak English.

One thing that was clear to me with ALL the Chinese printers is that very few understand the publishing business beyond what the major publishers represent it to be.  Meaning, the Chinese representatives understood very little of the economics of publishing aside from overall printing cost, unit cost, and shipping cost.  They had little awareness of warehousing, holding, and distribution costs.  They knew nothing about “Long Tail”.  They knew very little about short-run printing, accelerated publishing, audio publishing, or micro-publishing.

As large as Ingram is, Lightning Source and the other POD printers are still very much unknown entities to the Chinese printers.

After a few brief conversations, it was clear they were happy to cater to American companies that wanted to commit to print runs of 3,000 and more.  Many of the Chinese companies wanted print runs of 5,000 or more.  However, what they do not yet understand is that “long tail” and the boom of small, independent publishers will continue to erode at the core business of the “big best-seller” that large publishing houses love so much.

Anyone who visits this website knows that my focus is paving the way into the publishing business from ground floor to the level you prefer to be at.  This is going to be an upward trend.  The days of the traditional big-bestseller will continue to drop.  Traditional publishers who do not pay attention at the “lower levels” will find themselves out of business within 10 years.

And these Chinese printers who, so far, have an economic advantage because of cheap labor, will find themselves with an ever-increasing base of American publishers who are less willing to commit to larger print runs.

Basically, as far as I can tell, Chinese printers, are out of touch of the undercurrents going on in the publishing industry.  Obviously, I want to do business with them if I can but I am concerned that they might be slow to adapt.

As publishing technology continues to improve in the U.S., the Chinese printers may eventually find themselves niched into a smaller marketplace.

I just returned from over a week-long adventure in Los Angeles that included the huge 2008 Book Expo America in Los Angeles.  This event followed the 3-day IBPA’s Publishing University also in the same city.

The last time I attended Book Expo America was in 2002 in NYC.  It was before I started my publishing firm, Ascend Beyond Publishing.  I definitely feel like I waited too long to go back but I did try to make up for lost time soaking it all up and managed to get some nice advance copies of upcoming books.

I am a book lover myself which is one reason I got into the publishing business.  I can honestly say my legs hurt every night from all the walking on the convention floor during the day.  The are so many exhibitors to visit and products to check out.

I had not planned on attending another Book Expo America for another 2 years but now I feel somewhat compelled to go back next year.  I have put it on my calendar.

For the next few days and weeks, I will be sharing my thoughts on what I saw at Book Expo America.