New Media Ecology (by Ringo Lam)

破網絡陷阱 IT業界可出力

Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:45:06 GMT

在疑似藝人淫照上網事件中，警方雖然已經迅速拘捕多名涉嫌轉貼及涉案人士，但整個事件其實暴露了不少問題，值得資訊科技業界和社會人士深入探討。

控淫照發佈法律跟不上

本來，資訊科技日新月異，互聯網文化更是大行其道，法例追不上發展已是預料之事。在本港普通法環境下本來不致有太大問題，等到累積了相當的法庭案例，社會對相關問題形成了共識，便可修訂有關法例。

事實上，在去年修訂的《2007年版權(修訂)條例》也加入條文，嘗試定義透過有線及無線網絡定期或頻密分發版權物品而導致版權人蒙受損失的刑事責任，更定立指引讓公眾知道何為定期或頻密，以防誤墮法網。

1993年亦制訂了「有犯罪或不誠實意圖而取用電腦」條文，對於遏止網絡罪行，已起到了一定作用。

可惜，最受關注的《淫褻及不雅物品條例》並未作出相應和及時的修訂。

自從版權條例經過修訂和「有犯罪或不誠實意圖而取用電腦」條文產生以來，當局變得相當主動，最引人注目的是，在2007年5月，因使用BT (Bit Torrent) 技術在互聯網上載電影而被定罪的「古惑天皇」，遭終審法院裁定上訴失敗而需要即時入獄，終審法院釐清了《版權條例》中「分發」的定義，指透過網絡分發侵權檔案亦屬違法行為，更成為全球首宗成功檢控案例。

至於「有犯罪或不誠實意圖而取用電腦」條文，在今年1月，一名中三學生涉嫌在互聯網下載黑客軟件，入侵八間學校內聯網，並竊取師生資料，被當局引用該條文拘捕。

由此可見，有了相對清晰的條文，無論執法當局和市民都可以較為放心。

然而，事情一涉及《淫褻及不雅物品管制修例》第21條，有關禁止發佈淫褻物品的條文中，「發佈」、「管有以供發佈」及「輸入以供發佈」，在互聯網環境下均缺乏詳細定義及例子。警方在執法過程中, 成功引用「發佈」把在談論區發帖的相關罪行入罪，但在轉發電郵及社區網站下, 情況就變得複雜。

「朋友」怎定義成爭拗話題

電郵是人對人的媒體, 但當收件人數達數百以至數千時, 便有可能被介定為「發佈」; 上載到社區網站時, 如內容設定為公開, 一般可視為「發佈」,
但如只限制在"朋友名單"內, 是否也屬「發佈」?

另外「公眾人士」的定義在警方上周的解釋後, 變得更加富爭論性, "何為朋友?"變成互聯網上的熱門話題。在Facebook上朋友是否真的可以定義為" 朋友"? 我想大定亦有不少的facebook朋友是沒有見過面的, 按警方解釋他們可能屬於公眾人士。

但如果定義這是朋友, 如有人在Facebook設立了一個群組，成員有10,000多人，他們算是該人的「朋友」抑或「公眾人士」？凡此種種，都是現行法例中需要盡快檢討的地方。

政府與業界保網絡開放

本人覺得，為今之計，政府應該盡快與資訊科技界坐下來一起商討，據我所知，業界人士十分樂意就網民的使用習慣、互聯網和軟件的新趨向等問題向政府提供專業意見。

本會亦已聯同其他資訊科技有關協會與警務署及商務及經濟發展局聯繫, 希望可以盡快提出用戶指引, 一方面可以維持一個開放及有創意的互聯網, 同時提供一個健康的環境，使業界和廣大網民知所適從，而不會隨時誤墮法網。

互聯網專業協會創會會長, Wisers創辦人

(原稿登於香港經濟日報 2008年2月11日)

數碼環境下的版權法（民事編）

Thu, 10 May 2007 02:45:14 GMT

談到民事責任，版權法的變化就更大。

內容產業的產業鏈在眾多產業中可謂最為複雜，按特區政府中央政策組在2003年發表的創意產業基線研究，產業鏈可按創意產業生產系統(Creative Industry Production System) 分為內容創造、生產及製造、分銷及傳播、消費四個環節。以音樂產業為例，創造者為作曲作詞人；唱片公司負責生產及製造；唱片店及現在的音樂網站是為分銷及傳播；最終到達一般用戶作為消費。當用戶在唱片店或網上購買音樂後，收到的費用便會以版權費形式向產業鏈中不同的角式進行分配。

產業鏈中的分工不是非常清楚，在不同工業，隨著科技發展及市場情況都會有變化。行業鏈中不同角式，經常出現利益分配糾紛，這些糾紛都是基於版權法交由法庭仲裁。最近四大唱片公司與中國最大互聯網搜尋器公司百度的官司便是這類案件的好例子, 當中涉及生產及製造商(唱片公司)與分銷及傳播商(互聯網搜尋器公司)的利益分配問題。

互聯網服務供應商的責任

百度在它的網站上提供MP3搜尋功能，讓用戶可以找到在互聯網上的MP3檔案，當中包括大量由用戶上載的侵權音樂作品。百度指它們只提供MP3的路徑，並沒有參與製作、上載及儲存，所以不構成發放。四大唱片公司指百度的用戶可以很簡易地通過搜尋器找到MP3文件，百度會顯示每個文件下載的可靠性，亦提供最熱門、最新下載等功能，明顯是有系統地及知情地支持用戶下載。案件在去年11月在北京法院一審，唱片公司敗訴，IFPI現正考慮上訴。

整個案子除了在爭議法律上何為侵權外，背後有很多商業談判在同時進行。當中主要爭議在於利益分配上，百度有40%的流量來自MP3搜尋服務，這帶來可觀的廣告收入。同時百度的做法亦令到唱片公司的正版下載服務不能運作，差不多所有唱片公司都沒有在中國互聯網有任何收入，整個音樂下載產業處於停頓，無法發展。

雖然百度沒有直接提供MP3盜版檔案，但這樣單方面的支持用戶侵權行為，無論在法庭上的最終判決是否有「間接法律責任」（在4月24日的同類件，中國雅虎的母公司阿里巴巴被判有罪，罰款21萬元），在道德上也不應鼓勵。作為一個門戶網站或搜尋器，它們是整個互聯網人流的集中點，第一次上網的人都會先到門戶或搜尋器，所以它們的一舉一動都會影響到互聯網用戶的習慣。百度的做法加速了網民的侵權行為，亦錯誤教育了網民對知識產權的認知。

作為國際上其中一個最重視知識產權的地方，我想沒有人想看到像百度這樣的情況在香港發生，所以在咨詢文件中，政府亦提出是否應該就互聯網服務供應商的角色引入新法例。

我們以為立法可能會有困難，因為門戶網站及搜尋器公司都是走在互網科技的最前端，過大的規管會阻礙科技發展。比較有效的辦法是推動行業自律，提高企業公民責任。令到企業在尋找新的產業結構及重新定立利益分配規則的同時，亦考慮到本身業務對社會的影響，最終達致一個健康的行業生態。香港要在這方面提供一個重要參考，這才是長遠發展的正確方向。

ISP應在民事訴訟提供協助？

記得從去年起，香港的音樂及電影界分別多次要求互聯網接達服務供應商(ISP)提供特定IP地址背後的用戶個人資料，以令他們向侵權人提出民事訴訟。當時兩個行業第一次碰在一起，版權人要求法庭頒命，ISP要深夜討論，大廢周章。其實ISP對提供用戶個人資料工作並不陌生，在很多刑事案件，ISP在收到法庭命令後，都會向警方提供有關資料，但這次是民事訴訟，ISP是否也應該照辦呢？

ISP作為一個渠道商，本身是沒有責任對用戶的侵權行為負責，加上電訊條例規定ISP是不應該隨意披露顧客的資料。但ISP所把握的資料，即在某一時刻某一IP地址的背後真實用戶，是整個訴訟的關鍵資料，如果沒有這資料，連被告是誰都不知道，所以權版人才一定要在ISP協助下才能提出起訴。

這既然是民事訴訟，我想可以有更加簡單的方法來加速兩方的合作，不必定立新的法例。每次成功訴訟，權版人一般會向侵權人索賞大約20,000-30,000元，版權人是可以考慮向ISP支付搜尋用戶資料的費用，費用應可在索賞費中抵銷。ISP一方面可收回成本，而同時可以要求版權人提供索賞保護，在發生錯誤起訴帶來的反索賞時，提供賠償。以我認識的ISP同業，大家都想見到一個健康的互聯網，只要有合理及可操作的方案，行業是非常樂於配合的。

健康行業生態

無論是內容商、互聯網服務供應商或ISP，在這個新媒體的生態中都是重要的組成部分，利益緊扣，大家應該集中力量來擴大市場，亦同時打擊盜版行為，這樣行業才會一直壯大，用戶才有更好的服務，更多的選擇。

Useful Links:

香港創意產業基線研究

數碼環境下的版權法（刑事編）

Thu, 10 May 2007 02:41:06 GMT

特區政府最近就數碼環境的權版保護進行咨詢，探討的話題非常前瞻性，單是主動提出對如此棘手的議題進行咨詢已是值得讚賞。但有評論批評咨詢文件以維護權版人為本，出台後引起大眾尤其是互聯網用戶恐慌。當中亦有評論提到一些Copyleft的概念，如Creative Common, GPL等，好不熱鬧。當中就P2P上下載刑事化問題最為棘手。

版權法平衡利益

版權法是建基於平衡版權擁有人的商業利益及公眾的合理享用權，當中百分之九十以上是民事條文，所以從來都是在討論平衡利益。例如在保護版權人的出版複印權的同時，版權法亦規定版權物品只有50年的法定保護，在這之後就會自動變成Public domain, 成為人類共同擁有的知識。在這樣的大前題下，版權法是從版權人出發是理所當然的，社會共識是希望版權法可以保護我們的創作人有法律保障他的“商業”利益。

但在推動CC時，我們千萬不能以此無限上岡，要求其他版權人也放棄他們的“商業”利益，把他們賴以為生的作品也免費發佈。其實CC及版權法是互補的法律框架，例如一個新的作曲家可以先以CC在互聯網發佈一部份他的創作，其間他可以選擇放棄大部分利益，網民可以隨意下載。但當他受到唱片公司的賞識時，新出版的作品唱片公司選擇保留“商業”利益，這時網民便不可以隨意下載，他的作品便會受到法律保護，當然同時他亦會收到他應得的版權費。

法例要科技中立

科技發展迅速，法律條文一定要科技中立，否則很容易過時以至不能應用。一百年前，侵權都是概念上的抄襲，如拿別人的作品當作自己的作品。但除著科技發展，我們可以用影印機複印書籍、錄音帶複製音樂、錄影帶複製電視劇，在電子化後出現了用CD/DVD來複製影音產品，以及之後的互聯網發放。科技只會不斷發展，而且發展速度很快，但立法修法過程需時，以新法例規管某一特定科技是不切實際的，美國的２個案例就可說明一切。

Napster出現於1999年，是早的P2P軟件，主要應用於交換音樂檔案，經過多年的法律程序，終於在2001年A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster 一案審結，Napster敗訴，法庭要求Napster停止服務。但不到２年，同樣是P2P技術，在2003年MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster一案中MGM敗訴，Grokster無需因為使用這軟件的用戶侵權而負責。兩個技術的跟本分別只是中央數據文檔的儲存方式，Napster是放在中央服務器，而Grosker（及現在常用的BT, eMute等）使用一種名為Distributed Hatch Table的分散式儲存技術。由此可見，以法例追科技，只會徒勞無功。

在普通法（Common Law）系統下，法例條文應只集中定義何為侵權行為（例如何為複製、向公眾發放、管有侵權物品等），及在那些情況下會有刑事責任（如屬於業務情況），情況是指動機及引發的後果，應不涉及具體技術；法庭基於案例在特定時空及環境下裁定具體是否違法。這樣的分工行之有效，最好的例子就是香港的“古蠱天王”一案，在一審及上訴時法庭是基於動機入罪，法官相信古蠱天王是在有計劃的程況下進行上載種子行為，而這行為亦只是為了讓別入下載，亦引致版權人不能再行使其作品的經濟權利，明顯乎合發放管有的條件。此案件５月９日就會在終審庭審結，相信會成為一個重要案例。

我們應該相信法庭會透過不同案例來定具體定義某一特定行為是否違法，相反在立法時我們應該集中定義或修改某些行為及動機是否違法，而不是針對某一科技。

為何要刑事化？

既然是商業利益，那為什麼要有刑事條文呢？這想這是很多市民一直的疑問，這是否又是另一種官商勾結？在現時的版權法中，只有屬於業務情況的侵權行為及在與業務無關的情況下，分發侵權複製品達到損害版權擁有人權利的程度很大時，才會引發刑事犯罪，其他情況下只會是民事責任。加上要刑事入罪，政府亦要證明疑犯的動機及在知情下侵權，法庭才會判以有罪。所以市民在一般情況下，就如購買盜版碟，是不會購成刑事犯罪，但當然會面對版權人的民事索賞。

在網上，下載等同購買盜版碟，所以不應該落入刑事範圍。上載到特定地點而主要目的在於讓其他人下載，我認為應該這行為應等同分發。在“古蠱天王”一案中，法庭對於BT上載種子這行為視為分發，加上他是知情及有動機下上載，所以一審及上訴庭都判有罪，當然還要看終審庭的結果。那在P2P環境下，在下載的同時用戶亦參與上載，用戶是否亦會有刑事責任？

在單一個人的行為上來看，這樣的上載量應該很難定義為發放，而且上載量亦很難達到對版權人有損害的程度，因為大部分用戶只上載了一部分的檔案，甚至可能是不同物品的不同部分。但在集體行為下，他們是構成了達有損害的程度，所以最簡單的辦法就是政府利用一次大規模的BT上下載行為，一次過向所有參與的人仕集體起訴，讓法庭有機會討論一下這樣的集體行為是否構成刑事罪行。而不是在現階段對P2P的上下載行為進行定義，把某些特別的行為進行刑事化，這不單會違反科技中立原則，亦會另版權法過於偏向版權人。

知識產權環境是文化產業的基石

香港的版權法在世界也是在一個先進的水平，我們的法例及案例，以至各行業版權協會的成立，都是大家一起建立起來的。通過多年對知識產權的教育、討論，我會才達至現在的社會共識。所以我們應該繼續的們的理性討論，修改法例、累積案例來令香港的知識產權環境達到世界水平，版權人受到應有保護，大眾享有更好的內容，這樣香港的內容文化工業才會繼續在世界領先。

Useful Links:

Judgment of the Trail Magistrate

Judgment of the Appeal Court

Google becomes B2B info Aggregator (unexpectedly)

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:32:40 GMT

When Google start working on Google Scholar and Google News projects, they may not aware that they are getting into the B2B market.

Google Scholar provides a direct search results with deep link to the journal publishers article. If you are on a campus network that have subscribed to the content, once you click on the link, the PDF file of your paper will pop up. Just like what you do with normal Google search. But actually, your university have already paid for you. The journal publishers are happy, coz they can now reach the end users (library and students) directly. They don't have to go through their long-time partner and enemy - Aggregator (e.g. ProQuest). As most publishers have already put up their papers on web already. ProQuest will be out of business very soon.

Google currently expand it's Google News to cover archive stories - Google News Archive Service. With same logic as Google Scholar, users can now go deep into the news site to buy article one by one or thru site license access. Same as the impact to ProQuest, Google will post a thread to the business of news aggregators like Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and Thomson Dialog.

I think that's the major reason that trigger Reuters to sell out Factiva.

Dow Jones acquired Reuter's interest in Factiva for $160 million yesterday (Market Watch, 18 Oct). Factiva is a 50-50 joint venture between Reuters and Dow Jones set up in 1999 in respond to the web development. It takes Factiva more than 3 years to integrate and migrate the Reuters RBB platform (terminal) and Dow Jones Interactive platform to the new Factiva.com platform. Lexis-Nexis and Thomson are also doing the same thing in this period. Thomson finally reveal Thomson One platform last year. But when they are busy with their web-platform-migration, Google has become a B2B aggregator unexpectedly. People start using Google News search to find business news before checking their Factiva a/c. Reasons are simple - faster and more convenient. It's not difficult to read from Reuters CEO's comment what really concern him.

Reuters' CEO Tom Glocer comments on Factiva sale: “The Factiva joint venture was a classic win-win, which transformed two sub-scale news archive businesses into a profitable global business. So why, you might ask, are we exiting? The simple answer is that the price is right and the timing is right. The price works out to over 13 times current year EBITDA, and more than a four times return on the $40 million we originally put into this business, so we are quite happy with that, and the timing is right, given my own view that the competitive landscape for Factiva is changing. Content previously only available on a subscription basis is becoming available on the free web, such as the new Google news archive service. My belief is that Factiva will be able to react more nimbly and creatively to these new challenges under the ownership of a single parent.”

To everybody surprise, Google as a consumer site.... suddendly become a very strong B2B information aggregator. And the worst is this new B2B aggregator providing service for FREE.

Is Google guity for scanning books

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:21:41 GMT

Google kicked off the book scanning initative in mid 2005. MSN and Yahoo both follow through later in the year. After a year of suspension, resume, legal dispute, etc... the real benefit and legal stand of these book scanning projects become a bit clear. This article from NY Times ("Scan This Book", 14 May 2005) provide a very comprehensive view point and vision about these "books" after they are scanned.

Books in the library can roughly classified into 3 categories under U.S. copyright law. 15% of the book titles are already in the public domain, anyone are free to make copy. 10% are still in print, and the remaining 75% are not in print. Both the 10% and 75% are copyrighted material owned by book publishers.

All scanning projects focus on the first 15%. And most portal sites (Amazon, Google, Yahoo, etc.) have stricked business deal with book publishers to sell the 10% still-in-print in either e-book or by pages. No one would like to touch the remaing 75% - portal sites are afraid of copyright infringement; book publishers don't want to invest for limited economic benefit. Therefore, these 75% books just sit in the library.

Google finally decided to scan this remaining 75% as well last Nov, after stopping for 3 months.

Both consumer and most authors of these books like the idea very much. For the authors, these books have already sold out and out-of-print, it won't generate any money for them. But if the books can not be search and possibly drive some sales or advertising revenue in the future, it's so nice. Google did a great job connecting these "dead" books with the users. What's a great move again.

But does Google have the legal ground to stand on?

Negotiation failed last fall. Book publishers sue Google for copyright infringement for scanning the books without getting the permission. Google argue that it will only allow users to view a few lines/pages. It should be well within the "fair use" of the books, as this will provide an opportunity for user to "preview" it. Although the case is still in progress, most publishers have already stricked deals with Google on the 15% titles. I think it's only a tactics of book publishers to strengthen their bargaining position. But even if book publishers are willing to deal with Google, they may not be able to solve their own copyright problem with the authors. Revenue split formula still need to develop on how authors can share the ad dollar, otherwise it will be another dispute.

The copyright issue behind are quite complicated. It must not be an easy task for the court. There are still several months before the judgement (which definatelly will follow up by appeal...), but I really hope that they can negotiate again for a solution. The last thing I would like to see is a repeated story of "The Authors Guild v. Lexis-Nexis & NY Times". It will only be a loss-loss outcome.

Do you think Google is guity?

Who Killed the Newspaper?

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:04:07 GMT

This is a very frightening title in Economist Aug 26 issue. These are some of the most worry statement in the story:

... Of all the "old" media, newspaper have the most to lose from the internet. Circulation has been falling in America, western Eurpoe, latin America, Australia and New Zealand for decades..... In his book "The Vanishing Newspaper", Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition.... [Full Article 1 & 2 ]

Circulation drop is a fact, which can tell from statistics. Even China, as a developing country, also cannot record circulation increase for many years. The most circulated newspaper can only reach 2 millions, not much progress. May be total number of circulation is even dropping. So newspaper in a newsprint format is definatelly facing a lot of challenge in coming decades. As executive and management of newspaper companies, you should really do something.

In the board meeting on July 19, 2005 of Knight Ridder (the 2nd largest newspaper chain in U.S.), Bruce Sherman, the CEO of PCM, the largest shareholder of Knight Ridder, said to the company executive that they have not adequately addressed the challenges of advertising revenue moving away from print, the lack of a nationally recognized Internet source and "unexceptional" operating margins. Sherman hinted that PCM might support a hostile takeover or move for a management shake-up if the board does not move for a sale. Bruce Sherman's company is a very serious investor of newspaper industry. PCM, a large Baltimore-based investment firm, has added substantially to its newspaper holdings since 2000. It holds large stakes in companies like the New York Times and Gannett, the nation's largest newspaper publisher by circulation.

Sherman's action trigger a fierce discussion among the investor world whether they should pull the money out from the industry. Just a coincidence, most big media giant, like Walt Disney, Times Warner, Viacom and NBC-Universal, didn't own any big newspaper property. Only News Corp has big exposure on newspapers, not just in US, but around the world. Suddendly, everybody is looking at Murdoch, who is a big fan of newspaper for his whole life. He didn't face the question in News Corp's AGM last year about his newspaper business. But rather he made a high profile speech to talk about his latest acquisition - MySpace.

Knight Ridder was finally sold at a discount to McClatchy for $4.1 billion on June this year. This is a very sad news to the journalist circule. You can tell from this news story on San Jose Mercury.

There are still decades before anything serious will happen to the newspaper industry. But definatelly it's happening. As I said, newspaper industry get the most high hit, because it's the one who run first on Internet. Most experience learnt from newspaper can apply to other media.

Let's keep on the discussion here (good that language is not a barrier on web) ... and most of you did not have an opportunity to speak in class. I think some of the points raised are worth further discussion, e.g. creditability of web news, interactivity with readers, user-submitted news (or rumor?), e-ink, advertiser-driven business model, free newsprint, etc. Enjoy.

Let's communicate in a 2.0 way

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:02:24 GMT

In the middle of the Web 2.0 era, we better communicate in a 2.0 way. Let's start this blog as a meeting point for all of us - the CUHK New Media students and alumni.

I hit into a book in 王府井书店 few days ago. The book is only a 100-page small print and the title is 新媒体发展. When I pick it up and check the publishing date, it's 1990. Most of the topics are about television - color TV, statellite TV, role between sat TV and local TV, etc. There is no mention of mobile, Internet, web.... of course! Internet was first commercialized on 1990, the first brower called Mosaic was released in 1993, and the HTML and HTTP protocol were finally standardized in 1994 when WWW Consortium was officially formed. In 1990, "New Media" means TV to most of the people.

So, are you ready to invest your career in such an industry? If so (I hope so, otherwise you should not be here! The course is really expensive.), be prepared for the ever changing nature of your future work. It will be very interesting and exciting to run in the front roll. It's also very frightening and unsecured when you are left behind. But that's so much FUN here....you're lovin' it.

Photo Album: Digital Agenda Forum on Copyright

Sat, 12 May 2007 11:26:51 GMT

Digital Agenda Forum on Copyright

Speaking for DCA & iProA

in Digital Agenda Forum

organised by SCK

on the Challenge of Copyright in Digital Age

in HK Productivity Council

The floor, over 100 people

York from ISPA

Rep from BSA

with other partners in the industry - IFPI, MPIA, etc.

As forum speaker, look good?

More Photos...

Photo Album: 2006 BBQ

Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:38:18 GMT

2006 BBQ

Photo Album: 2005 Class

Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:20:04 GMT

2005 Class

2005 Class Grad Gathering

Grad Gathering

2005 Group E - EMI Music

2005 Group R - RTHK

2005 Group A - Apple Daily

Custom List: Custom List

Thu, 10 May 2007 08:40:54 GMT

Book List: Book List

Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:20:40 GMT

Harold L. Vogel: Entertainment Industry Economics: A Guide for Financial Analysis
A very comprehensive book to provide details econmic behind the creative industry.
Alison Alexander, James Owers, Rod Carveth, C. Ann Hollifield, Albert N. Greco: Media Economics - Theory and Practice
Provide latest trend of the economics (and role of different players) after new tech get into the pictures. It has dedicated chapters for newspaper, books & magazines, TV networks, cable, movie, radio, music and online.
Martin Lister, John Dovey, Seth Giddings, Iain Grant, Kieran Kelly: New Media: A Critical Introduction
Analyse new media in multiple angle - tech, viscual art, culture, economics, social, etc. Chapter 1 is particularly good for students what to have general idea of technology behind NM.
Gillian Doyle: Understanding Media Economics
Very good starting material for understanding how media indsutry is running as a business.