Mediaboss Marketing

BEIJING (AP) -- Google has fired a new salvo in a censorship battle with Beijing by adding a feature that suggests alternatives for search terms that might result in blocked results.

Google's announcement Thursday did not mention of Beijing's extensive Internet controls. But it comes after filters were tightened so severely in recent weeks that searches fail for some restaurants, universities or tourist information. Authorities were aiming to stamp out talk about an embarrassing scandal over the fall of a rising Communist Party star.

Google Inc. closed its China-based search engine in 2010 to avoid cooperating with government censorship. Mainland users can see its Chinese-language site in Hong Kong but the connection breaks if they search for sensitive terms.

The new feature will alert users in China if they type in a search term that "may temporarily break your connection to Google" and suggest alternative terms, Google said in a blog post signed by a senior vice president, Alan Eustace.

"By prompting people to revise their queries, we hope to reduce these disruptions and improve our user experience from mainland China," Eustace wrote.

Google cited as an example the Chinese character "jiang," or river, without mentioning that it also is the name of former President Jiang Zemin, the possible reason the government blocks search results. It says the site will recommend users in China write their search terms without that character.

A Google spokesman in Tokyo, Taj Meadows, declined to comment on reasons for the feature or whether the company was concerned about Chinese government retaliation.

Google was allowed to keep a network of advertising sales offices in China that might be vulnerable if the communist government tries to punish the company.

Google, based in Mountain View, California, had 16.6 percent of China's search market in the first quarter based on use of its global and Hong Kong sites, according to Analysys International, a Beijing research firm. It was in second place behind local rival Baidu Inc., which 78.5 percent, but ahead of other Chinese competitors.

Google is also promoting its Android mobile phone operating system for use by Chinese manufacturers. Chinese regulators approved Google's $12.5 acquisition of Motorola Mobility, a wireless device maker, last month on condition Android remains available to Chinese companies and others at no cost for five years.

See the original post:
Google adds feature to help China searchers

In a move designed to sidestep government censorship of search results, Google has added a new feature to Search in China: An alert that will tell users if their search terms are likely to trigger watchdog action.

In a move that will surely cause trouble for the Internet search giant, Google is changing its search service for users in China to add a warning that will alert users if theyre using terms that could result in some form of governmental censorship.

In a blog post today, the company announced that it will notify users in mainland China when they enter a keyword that may cause connection issues, adding that [b]y prompting people to revise their queries, we hope to reduce these disruptions and improve our user experience from mainland China. The problem with the user experience, according to the company, was that many Google Search results would be replaced with error messages reporting that This webpage is not available, or The connection was reset. Weve taken a long, hard look at our systems and have not found any problems, the blog post continues, However, after digging into user reports, weve noticed that these interruptions are closely correlated with searches for a particular subset of queries.

The blog post doesnt mention censorship at all, instead calmly referring to the companys wish to have as many people in the world as possible have access to our services. However, the company has had tumultuous relations with the Chinese government for some time, even getting to the point of accusing the government last year of attempting to hack the personal Gmail accounts of hundreds of users including, among others, senior US Government officials, Chinese political activists, officials in several Asian countries (predominantly South Korea), military personnel and journalists.

Itll remain to be seen whether or not China will respond to the changes. Technically, Google isnt actually stopping the Chinese government from censoring results, its merely warning users when they might be about to trip the censorship; the blog post announcing the change even offers that if users want to press ahead with their original queries they can carry on. And yet by drawing attention to the issue in this way, and suggesting that their team of engineers has cracked the code of what, exactly, is likely to cause the censored search in the first place it feels as if this is almost daring China to respond in some way. I wonder how much trouble it would be to permanently offer 404 errors for all of Google Search

(Via)

Excerpt from:
Google changes Chinese search to alert for censorship

Illustration by http://www.fizzzbzzzz.com

Whats the opposite of free speech? If you answered, totalitarian censorship, you are right -- and you are old.

In the Internet age, censorship is all about allowing partial, temporary free speech, then shutting it down once enough has been said. The innovator, as usual these days when it comes to nondemocratic governance, is China, where the leading microblog site, Sina Weibo, unveiled its modified censorship model this week.

Users get 80 points. Monitors will take away points for violations. These include the censors old favorite, criticizing the government. You can also lose points for spreading rumor (which I thought was the whole point of the Internet) or promoting cults (a provision apparently aimed at the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong). The monitors will also scour your comments for puns or other circumlocutions used to avoid censorship in the past. If you run out of points, youre cut off.

If free speech is so threatening, why dont the powers- that-be in China just shut down the microblogs altogether? Part of the answer is that with 324 million users, Sina Weibo has become too big to fail, or at least too much a part of normal Chinese life to be eliminated. But the deeper reason to keep the masses microblogging is that the Chinese government reaps important gains from it. This is not your fathers Communist Party. Nor your grandfathers. Chinas leadership is engaged in a complicated, risky process of trying to gain some of the advantages of democratic government without the disadvantage of putting itself up for direct election. Free speech is a crucial part of the experiment.

A major benefit of allowing people to complain on the Web is that it allows society to blow off steam. This is a venerable value of free speech, recognized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in a famous dissent in 1951, responding to the courts choice to uphold the conviction of 11 American Communists for teaching subversive ideas. The airing of ideas releases pressures which otherwise might become destructive, Douglas wrote. If such release is beneficial in a democracy, its doubly so in a place where there is no robust public sphere.

Another advantage of limited free speech is that it allows the government to gather information about public concerns. Chinese authorities cant rely on ordinary polling data, because pollsters in China cant operate freely, lest they learn of serious opposition to the government. And its impossible to spy on 1.3 billion people all the time. The microblogs serve as the abstract and brief chronicles of the time, as Hamlet called the theater.

Once the microblogs have conveyed what people are thinking, the government can respond to their concerns, as it did last summer after the Zhejiang train derailment when Premier Wen Jiabao made a special visit to the site in apparent reaction to public frustration with bureaucratic silence and denials. Responding to public opinion is the hallmark of accountable government. Without elections to provide oversight, Chinas leaders need every opportunity they can get to demonstrate that they respond to peoples concerns. Seen this way, limited free speech, followed by government action, is an important part of how the Chinese Communist Party seeks to sustain its legitimacy.

The party is utterly aware that free speech could help bring the government down. That is why it is experimenting with freedom in moderation, and using quasi-private entities like Sina Weibo as its proxies. Chinas leaders are trying to gain the advantages of free speech without paying its full price. First Amendment absolutists will probably raise their eyebrows at this. After all, Americans have been raised to believe that free speech has a life of its own; that truth is great and shall prevail.

Yet there is an extraordinary precedent for Chinas censorship model: the history of free speech in England and the U.S. before the modern era. When it was drafted, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution didnt contemplate the radical freedom Americans now enjoy. Its language, drawn from English precedents, was aimed essentially at prohibiting what is called prior restraint: government censorship of books and newspapers before they could be published. As with the Sina Weibo rules, once you had spoken or written, you could still be punished for what you had freely said. You were accountable under the crime of seditious libel.

Original post:
China’s Blog Censorship Rules Have U.S. Parallels

BOULDER, Colo., May 31, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --New Frontier Media, Inc. (NOOF), a leading provider of transactional television services and distributor of general motion picture entertainment, today announced that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the publicly-traded South African conglomerate, Hosken Consolidated Investments Limited (Johannesburg Stock Exchange: HCI), its Executive Chairman Marcel Golding, Longkloof Limited, Mile End Limited, Sabido Investments, Adam Rothstein, Eric Doctorow, Mahomed Khalik Ismail Sheriff, Willem Deon Nel, and Barbara Wall alleging violations of the U.S. federal securities laws. In the complaint, New Frontier Media alleges that Hosken, Longkloof, Marcel Golding, Adam Rothstein and the other defendants have been acting as a "group" in connection with their involvement in a hostile takeover offer for the Company and a threatened proxy contest against the Company. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by not properly reporting their identity and activities as a "group," including that they have failed to disclose that their efforts to acquire control of the Company, whether through a hostile takeover offer or a proxy contest for control of the Company's Board, are being directed and coordinated by Adam Rothstein. The suit also alleges that the purported notice of director nominations provided to New Frontier Media by a Hosken affiliate does not comply with the advance notice of nomination requirements contained in the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws since it does not disclose Adam Rothstein's involvement in the threatened proxy contest or provide any of the disclosures required by the Bylaws to be made with respect to Adam Rothstein. The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

As previously announced earlier this month, New Frontier Media has received a purported notice of nomination from a Hosken affiliate that it intends to nominate four individuals, including two employees of a Hosken affiliate, for election to the New Frontier Media Board of Directors at the Company's 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The notice was received by the Company on April 26, 2012, with only one day remaining before the closing of the advance notice period on April 27, 2012, which period is determined by the Bylaws. At the time, New Frontier Media indicated that it was continuing to review the notice to determine whether the notice complies with New Frontier Media's Bylaws and applicable law.

New Frontier Media believes that the defendants' threatened proxy contest, together with its numerous inflammatory statements attacking the Company, is an attempt to pressure the Company to pre-empt its on-going process for reviewing strategic alternatives, give favorable consideration to the Hosken / Rothstein group's unsolicited, non-binding, conditional acquisition proposal and, accordingly, further the self-interested agenda of the Hosken / Rothstein group to gain control of New Frontier Media.

Since receiving the purported notice of nomination, the Special Committee of independent directors that is overseeing the review of strategic alternatives available for the Company has been, with the assistance of its counsel, reviewing the purported notice of nomination against the requirements of New Frontier Media's Bylaws. As a result of such review, the Special Committee believes that the purported notice does not comply with the Bylaws and that it is necessary and appropriate, due to the significant potential for uncertainty and confusion and the need for the Company to incur substantial expenses to plan for a proxy contest, to have this promptly confirmed with a judicial determination.

The Special Committee also issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit filed in federal court:

"The Special Committee believes that Hosken, Rothstein, Golding and the other members of their group have not been forthright in their communications with our shareholders. The Special Committee is fully committed to protecting the interests of all New Frontier Media shareholders and we intend to aggressively pursue this legal action to protect our shareholders.

The Special Committee also believes that a prompt determination whether Hosken's purported notice of nominations has been validly made is necessary to avoid the unnecessary and substantial expense and confusion that will otherwise be involved in planning for a proxy contest at the 2012 Annual Meeting, preparing the applicable documents required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a proxy contest at the 2012 Annual Meeting and holding the 2012 Annual Meeting. The Special Committee also believes that the pendency of the proxy contest has the potential to chill the interest of some potential buyers and will interfere with the Special Committee's goal of maximizing value for all shareholders of the Company.

We remain very disappointed that the Hosken / Rothstein group has made it abundantly clear that it is unwilling to participate on an equal footing with all other bidders in the Special Committee's process for maximizing shareholder value and, instead, has chosen to launch a costly, disruptive and distracting proxy contest to place four of their hand-picked candidates on the New Frontier Media's six-member Board in an apparent attempt to obtain control of the Company. Their recent actions, including their refusal to execute our form of bidder confidentiality agreement, their inflammatory press releases and their refusal to withdraw their costly, disruptive and distracting proxy contest, make clear that, rather than constructively engaging with the Special Committee and accepting our invitation to participate in our process to maximize shareholder value on an equal footing with all other bidders, the Hosken / Rothstein group is attempting to pressure the Special Committee to pre-empt its process and grant the Hosken / Rothstein group's unsolicited, non-binding, conditional acquisition proposal preferential treatment, even if such treatment would deprive other New Frontier Media shareholders of the opportunity to obtain maximum value for their shares.

However, the Special Committee and the other members of the New Frontier Media Board will not be distracted from acting in the best interests of, and maximizing value for, all shareholders. We will also not be deterred from our goal of providing a level playing field for all potential buyers of the Company. Our Board would prefer to avoid a costly and disruptive proxy contest and focus our full attention on realizing New Frontier Media's significant potential. However, we will not stand idly by while the Hosken / Rothstein group pursues their own self-interested agenda to gain control of New Frontier Media."

In connection with New Frontier Media's lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against Hosken, Rothstein, Golding and the other defendants named therein, the Special Committee is being assisted by its legal advisor, Alston & Bird LLP.

Excerpt from:
New Frontier Media Files Federal Lawsuit Against Hosken Consolidated Investments, Longkloof Limited, Marcel Golding ...

By Todd Shields and Alex Sherman - 2012-06-01T04:01:00Z

John Malones Liberty Media Corp. (LMCA), the holder of interests in businesses ranging from cable programmer Starz LLC to the Atlanta Braves baseball team, told U.S. regulators it wants to take over Sirius XM Radio Inc.

Liberty plans to assert control of the largest U.S. satellite radio provider after receiving approval from the Federal Communications Commission, the Englewood, Colorado-based company said in a filing yesterday. Liberty has asked the FCC to reconsider the agencys May 4 dismissal of its application for permission to take control, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Libertys move has fueled speculation Malone wants to spin off his stake in New York-based Sirius, led by Chief Executive Officer Mel Karmazin. Liberty will probably execute a so-called Reverse Morris Trust, which involves splitting off its Sirius (SIRI) stake as a separate entity and giving its stockholders the option to hold or sell their Sirius shares, according to James Ratcliffe, an analyst at Barclays Capital Inc. in New York.

To execute the spinoff, Liberty must have Siriuss board approval. Sirius is in talks with Liberty about the companys ownership interest, according to a separate filing by Sirius. It said Sirius doesnt expect to disclose developments in the discussions.

Courtnee Ulrich, a Liberty spokeswoman, didnt respond to a telephone call and e-mail. Patrick Reilly, a Sirius spokesman, declined to comment.

Malone, Libertys chairman, saved Sirius from bankruptcy in 2009 with a $530 million loan. Liberty boosted its stake in Sirius to 46.2 percent from 40 percent last month.

Libertys interest in a Reverse Morris Trust is to save on capital gains taxes, said analyst Brett Harriss, a Gabelli & Co. analyst in Rye, New York. Distributing Sirius shares to Liberty stockholders through a spinoff instead of selling them on the open market lets the company avoid paying taxes on the sale, he said.

Liberty would also have the right to change management at the company if it gains control of the board. Malone may not want to remove Karmazin, who helped turn around the company since taking over in 2008, said Harriss, who has a hold rating on Sirius shares.

All the comments that Liberty has made toward Mel have been positive, and Mels done a good job increasing the companys profitability, Harriss said in an interview. That being said, I could see a situation where there could be conflicting personalities. These are two high-powered guys in Mel and John.

Read more:
Liberty Tells U.S. It Wants to Take Control of Sirius XM Radio