SPH smelly?

[Jusnel]

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/11/straits-times-removes-homes-video-interview-with-lawyer-anil-balchandani-after-being-called-out-for-not-seeking-consent-for-use-of-video/

Not just the unauthorized use of video without getting permission 

I didn't know that they actually charge people for using their own videos.

Is this an international practice or just uniquely Singapore?

SPH wants to run a story on me, using me as the main object of the story. Without me, SPH has nothing to talk and nothing to sell. I want to use the video and I have to pay SPH?

Nowadays with home made videos and digital storyboard creation, people can create their own videos, do their own interviews, and placed them in all social media platforms GLOBALLY.  

What value proposition does SPH has?

What is it that SPH can do, that other platforms cannot do? 

If they can't answer these 2 questions, they are fossilised in this digital age. 

It sounds like thug bullying to me.

 

[Mustank]

[Mustank]

At least make me money lah

sian

[yishunite]

4 minutes ago, Mustank said:

Maybe the strategy is to make whoever buying out SPH very happy with the bargain price they will get when the deal goes thru... just like NOL

[Stratovarius]

Actually I don't think that's wrong. They are the one who created the article. So the article is their property. The subject might be you but sph is the one who created the article. If you use their article as a form of advertisement, I think they have the right to charge. No?

It's like those food shows on mediacorp. I always feel that the shop owners paid mediacorp to advertise them on tv. 

[Volvobrick]

8 minutes ago, Mustank said:

At least make me money lah

sian

Short it to make lor.... 

[Jusnel]

4 minutes ago, Stratovarius said:

Actually I don't think that's wrong. They are the one who created the article. So the article is their property. The subject might be you but sph is the one who created the article. If you use their article as a form of advertisement, I think they have the right to charge. No?

It's like those food shows on mediacorp. I always feel that the shop owners paid mediacorp to advertise them on tv. 

Yeah, the most impt component is the subject. Without any subject, what article can they create?

This may be the biz model all along, but at this digital age, it's time to change the model.

Last time, the only means is through mainstream like SPH, ST, etc.  The common people have no access to other means.

Now is different. I don't need SPH or ST to run my story. I can create my own storyboard with video and whatnot and put them in any platform I want. 

Again, we got to ask the fundamental question: What value proposition does SPH has? 

[Tianmo]

8 minutes ago, Volvobrick said:

Short it to make lor.... 

short and then it starts to take the staircase up, and kena stuck in the valley.....

[yishunite]

22 minutes ago, Stratovarius said:

Actually I don't think that's wrong. They are the one who created the article. So the article is their property. The subject might be you but sph is the one who created the article. If you use their article as a form of advertisement, I think they have the right to charge. No?

It's like those food shows on mediacorp. I always feel that the shop owners paid mediacorp to advertise them on tv. 

The use of HOME video without permission prolly violates PDPA on several levels. Thats why quickly taken down

[Mcscot]

1 hour ago, Jusnel said:

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/11/straits-times-removes-homes-video-interview-with-lawyer-anil-balchandani-after-being-called-out-for-not-seeking-consent-for-use-of-video/

Not just the unauthorized use of video without getting permission 

I didn't know that they actually charge people for using their own videos.

Is this an international practice or just uniquely Singapore?

SPH wants to run a story on me, using me as the main object of the story. Without me, SPH has nothing to talk and nothing to sell. I want to use the video and I have to pay SPH?

Nowadays with home made videos and digital storyboard creation, people can create their own videos, do their own interviews, and placed them in all social media platforms GLOBALLY.  

What value proposition does SPH has?

What is it that SPH can do, that other platforms cannot do? 

If they can't answer these 2 questions, they are fossilised in this digital age. 

It sounds like thug bullying to me.

 

Ohhhhh ... this is common SPH practice. I remembered the last time my company used an article ST wrote about us and we were told to remove it as it violated copyrights. We needed to pay ST a fee to use the article on our website etc etc.

I wonder if they do the same to the Hawkers they feature in the food section.

 

[Lethalstrike]

56 minutes ago, Mustank said:

[Spurman]

4 minutes ago, Lethalstrike said:

The low res photo makes a typical breathless unker next door

[t0y0ta]

1 hour ago, Jusnel said:

https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/09/11/straits-times-removes-homes-video-interview-with-lawyer-anil-balchandani-after-being-called-out-for-not-seeking-consent-for-use-of-video/

Not just the unauthorized use of video without getting permission 

I didn't know that they actually charge people for using their own videos.

Is this an international practice or just uniquely Singapore?

SPH wants to run a story on me, using me as the main object of the story. Without me, SPH has nothing to talk and nothing to sell. I want to use the video and I have to pay SPH?

Nowadays with home made videos and digital storyboard creation, people can create their own videos, do their own interviews, and placed them in all social media platforms GLOBALLY.  

What value proposition does SPH has?

What is it that SPH can do, that other platforms cannot do? 

If they can't answer these 2 questions, they are fossilised in this digital age. 

It sounds like thug bullying to me.

 

SPH was/is/will be the mouthpiece of the state, and by extrapolation PAP ruling party, that is their value proposition.

In the past, there was no other avenue to get news so Singaporeans lan lan buy their papers and thus advertisers lan lan put their ad money there.

With full monopoly, obviously their tactics are not exactly "gentleman" because they don't need to be nice.

Now, with other choices, no one wants to read them and advertisers are going where the eyeballs are. Their ad volumes are shrivelling.... maybe they will be nicer in future

[t0y0ta]

6 minutes ago, Lethalstrike said:

Liew Mun Leong is lucky to have this guy to contrast with him.

At least LML did not actively destroy the companies placed under him by Ah Gong.

[Ct3833]

57 minutes ago, Stratovarius said:

Actually I don't think that's wrong. They are the one who created the article. So the article is their property. The subject might be you but sph is the one who created the article. If you use their article as a form of advertisement, I think they have the right to charge. No?

It's like those food shows on mediacorp. I always feel that the shop owners paid mediacorp to advertise them on tv. 

Provided the personnel given loyalty fees first. If the person gets nothing,  then it is not fair to charge him for using the video, especially for personal use only.

[Jamesc]

Must be hard to sell newspaper in the digital age when everything is going online.

A good general should be able to see its will be an uphill battle and fight for a CEO job in a more promising company.

Don't tell me don't know how to pick and choose his battles?

How to win the war like that?

[Windwaver]

You know who is the CEO or not? 

 

[Windwaver]

1 hour ago, Jamesc said:

Must be hard to sell newspaper in the digital age when everything is going online.

A good general should be able to see its will be an uphill battle and fight for a CEO job in a more promising company.

Don't tell me don't know how to pick and choose his battles?

How to win the war like that?