A Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday seems to confirm a point The Times made in an editorial last month on a California regulation that would ban large-screen TVs from being sold because they consume too much energy: Leave it up to the market to catch up on electricity-inefficient televisions. An excerpt from the Rasmussen summary:

Conservation-minded folks (this bike and bus commuter considers himself one) may be discouraged by the majority opinion that most people feel being able to buy whatever mega-screen television they darn well please is more important than saving energy. But the energy-unregulated TV market is working in conservation's favor: Nearly the same percentage of people -- 54% -- say efficiency is important enough to them that would pay more for televisions that use less electricity.

As The Times' editorial pointed out, the new regulation would actually hamper the innovation already underway in the industry. The Rasmussen poll adds another point: California's action may deprive consumers of the energy-efficient entertainment they'd pay a premium for.

Hat tip: Katherine Mangu-Ward and Reason's Hit and Run.

-- Paul Thornton

Photo credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times

Lots of folks are writing these days about Rupert Murdoch's recent statement that News Corp. plans to stop its newspaper stories from being indexed by Google when it throws up a more comprehensive pay wall next year. His comments came days after the American Press Institute released an intriguing report on digital business models that exposed a gap between the industry's sense of its content's value and the public's perception. Hmm, "gap" isn't exactly the right word. Make that "yawning chasm."

API and ITZBelden surveyed daily-newspaper executives in North America in August and September, reaching a total of about 7% of the publications in the U.S. and Canada. Their responses were compared with results from consumer surveys aggregated by Belden earlier this year. The comparison revealed that news execs believed their stories were more valuable and harder to replace than readers did. For example, 52% of the readers surveyed said it would be somewhat easy or very easy to find a substitute for the online content that news industry websites were providing; 68% of the executives said the opposite.

Here's the most telling table, in my opinion -- it shows just how slim the chances are that readers who can no longer find the content they want on a newspaper's website will migrate to the paper's print edition:

Granted, the API study didn't seem to address the central issue posed by pay walls: how much, if anything, would people be willing to pay to read a story? But it did say this about the fees that newspapers charge for subscriptions to their websites:

"Respondents report a wide range of online subscription charges (from $1 to $27.50 a month), yet they report surprisingly uniform levels of uptake on subscriptions, typically 1 percent to 3 percent of print circulation -- regardless of price."

In other words, the vast majority of readers don't like the subscription model, regardless of how cheap it might be. Micropayments, anyone?

(Thanks to the Center for Media Research for putting the API report on my radar screen.)

-- Jon Healey

New FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, fresh off his speech to a wireless industry conference in San Diego, stopped by the Times this afternoon to talk to the editorial board and several members of the news staff about broadband policy, Net neutrality, media ownership and other items on the commission's plate. He was, shall we say, circumspect. At this point, almost every issue seems to boil down to a process question for Genachowski, who was far less willing than the two previous chairmen (interim and otherwise) to suggest what policies he'd like the commission to adopt. But hey, it's early yet -- he's been on the job for barely three months.

Here's the entire conversation, which lasted about 55 minutes. Many of the questions were asked by me, with Joe Flint chiming in on media consolidation and decency regulation, Jim Granelli on wireless Net neutrality, John Corrigan on the new chairman's view of his predecessors, David Sarno on wireless billing issues and Mark Milian on Google Voice:

The full session

And here are links to segments devoted to specific topics:

The DTV transition

Media ownership and consolidation

His predecessors at the FCC

Net neutrality

Wireless Net neutrality

Wireless broadband

Decency rules beyond broadcast TV

Wireless billing outrages

The Google Voice inquiry

Promoting broadband access, investment and adoption

-- Jon Healey

And for today's Facebook fad:

Posted, verbatim, again and again -- although how often would depend on who your Internet friends are.

All sympathies with the idea that people should not die for lack of health care and so forth, but I'm wondering exactly what the viral campaign is supposed to accomplish except for making the eyes of these folks' "friends" glaze over? Its bigger effect might be to get people to avoid social networking for the rest of the day in the hopes that this goes away and someone offers his or her own, more thought-provoking comment on the subject tomorrow.

Photo credit: Loic Venance / AFP/Getty Images

-- Karin Klein

My guess is no. I, admittedly, am guilty of texting while driving. And about five years ago this habit of mine resulted in the totaling of my car. Yes, my fault. And yes, stupid, I know. I was 17 years old, a brand new driver stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic less than a mile from my house. I was texting and not paying any attention (the two go together) and pressed the gas instead of the brake, ramming my bright teal land yacht (a 1996 Chrysler LHS) underneath the big pickup truck in front of me.

You would think that with that accident I learned my lesson. Au contraire. I still text while driving because it's convenient. Perhaps this reflects the social culture of a generation founded upon the notion that none of us can be out of touch for more than a few minutes. Texting, for many of us, is our main tool of communication. It's a little sad that we prefer typing to talking, but it's often fastest way to get across a quick message, let someone know when you'll meet them or give directions (since now on most phones you can copy and paste an address into a GPS program).

If texting while driving becomes a federal offense, as the editorial board hopes it will, I'm not sure that would stop me any more than the current state ban on texting does. Enforcement would be difficult, as most perpetrators keep their phones on their laps anyway. I'm surprised that hand-held cell phone usage has dropped so dramatically since the ban went into affect last summer, because I don't know anyone who has been given a ticket for it.

If the laws are not enforced, simply being "illegal" is not enough of a deterrent to stop talking or texting while driving. It's become too much of a way of life for me and my peers. Sure, there are hands-free devices that would keep me out of trouble in one respect, but ironically I've noticed myself texting in the car even more now that talking is banned. And texting, I believe, is far more dangerous. Trust me from experience.

I agree with the board that the best way to change this potentially dangerous behavior is through a high-profile campaign of public service announcements. The United Kingdom has started disseminating gory videos that simulate the nightmarish consequences of texting and driving ... (insert doomsday soundtrack here). Jesting aside, tactics like this are far more effective than once-in-a-blue-moon enforcement and puny fines. You could use me as a poster child: "Look what could happen to your car if you text while driving."

Credit: AP Photo / The Detroit News, John T. Greilick

--Catherine Lyons

The Southeastern Conference (you know, the home of those really good teams that win all the national championships?) has decided to ban social media from college stadiums. No iPhone photos, no cell phone videos, no Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.

According to the revised policy on new media released Monday, ticketed fans are not allowed to "produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event."

The SEC believes that the dissemination of videos, pictures, tweets and other newfangled technologies will reduce the number of viewers who watch live broadcasts of the game on TV -- and they want to protect their contract with CBS and other television networks.

Meanwhile, the Big Ten Conference has taken the opposite approach, encouraging the use of social media sites and the proliferation of status updates and tweets. Coaches like Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald see Facebook as a way to communicate with fans, not a tool that could jeopardize mainstream media. 

So which approach do you think is best? Is there some merit in the SEC's approach to let broadcast handle the viewers' demands? Or is the Big Ten right to embrace new technology?

Updated August 20 4:15 p.m.: The SEC reversed its policy after this blog post was written. The SEC's revised policy now reads:

-- Catherine Lyons

Credit: Sun Sentinel Staff Photo / Robert Duyos

Matthew Crippen, a Cal State Fullerton student, was arrested on federal charges of modifying videogame consoles for profit. The 27-year-old pleaded not guilty and was released Monday after posting $5,000 bond. If convicted, Crippen faces up to 10 years in prison.

The feds say Crippen modified Microsoft Xbox, Nintendo Wii and Sony Playstation consoles to play pirated disks, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Federal prosecutor Mark Krause told KPCC that Crippen “advertised online and had a large clientele.” 

Bringing charges against such alleged pirates as Crippen is a divisive issue. One the one hand (I'll get to the other side in a bit), you have the companies that expend considerable resources developing and selling the games and understandably want to see robust enforcement of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In 2005, four commercial retailers with Pandora’s Cube, a Washington-area store that sold modified consoles pre-loaded with games, were each sentenced to a few months in prison.   

The console manufacturers are guarding not just the integrity of their products, but also their business models. If modifiers were merely specializing in improved performance of the product, the issue wouldn’t be so important to the console producers. Surely Ford and GM wouldn't go after the show “Pimp My Ride” for decking out their companies' cars with louder stereos and more powerful engines.

Pirated disks can be bought for $10 or less, while the real things (brand new, of course) fetch $50 to $75 a copy. Just by looking at this price difference, it's easy to see that for game and console makers, this is indeed a lucrative business easily threatened by pirated software. 

On the flip side, some wonder why console buyers aren’t allowed to upgrade systems that are bought legitimately for as much as $600 apiece. Then there's the more pressing issue over whether locking up an otherwise harmless 27-year-old for a decade is the best use of resources (though, judging by past cases, Crippen stands to receive a much lighter sentence if convicted).  

In the battle between the rights of the creator and the freedom of the owner, which side of the game are you on?

--Kevin Patra

A warning is bouncing through cyberspace today, landing on the Facebook statuses of many of the social networking site's users. The message: "Facebook has agreed to let third party advertisers use your posted pictures without your permission." It continues with a prescription of how you can protect your photos.

On its face, Facebook's actions seem like a classic case of misappropriation, or the intentional, illegal use of the property of someone else for one's own use or some other unauthorized purpose. Facebook admits in its terms of service that all Intellectual Property content, like photos and videos, belong to you, the user. But the fine print essentially allows Facebook to do what its pleases with such content, with some limitations.

Elsewhere in those terms of service that no one ever reads before hastily clicking "I agree," Facebook says, "You can use your privacy settings to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial or sponsored content. You give us permission to use your name and profile picture in connection with that content, subject to the limits you place." (emphasis added).

Well, that's not vague or anything. What does "in connection with" these third-party ads (i.e. ads on Facebook but not for Facebook) mean? According to the Facebook-wide status panic about this, apparently it means that your married face could end up on a sexy singles ad.

But Facebook administrators say that's simply not true, and their policy has not changed regarding photos being used in third-party advertisements. Still, the Facebook blog says the site can use your photo for something that you have expressed interest in (say, by becoming a "fan") -- without your permission. Don't worry though, your data won't be shared.

According to All Facebook, the social networking site only allows its users' content to show up on third-party ads if the content is not being cached. But some ad networks do cache data. While many of those networks have been shut down and the site is doing its best to regulate, this is where the major problem lies. In some cases, pictures are appearing even outside the Facebook site.

As underhanded as this may seem, this should be a lesson to actually read the terms of service, vague as they may be, before signing up for a social networking service that wants to use your pictures in ads. That, or don't put up pictures you're not comfortable sharing with people outside your network of friends. In the meantime, you can change your privacy settings. The Facebook ads privacy settings are under "Newsfeeds and Wall."   

--Catherine Lyons

Credit: AP Photo / The Canadian Press, Sean Kilpatrick

Today we honored the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11 that brought astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong to the moon's surface. But we also discovered that NASA indeed taped over the footage of that first landing.

NASA TV specialist Dick Nafzger, who headed the search for the tapes, spoke to KPCC this morning:

"I don't think anyone in the NASA organization did anything wrong," Nafzger says. "I think it slipped through the cracks, and nobody's happy about it."

After a three-year search for the tapes, NASA concluded that the original footage was deleted when the program started erasing old magnetic tape so it could record satellite data. Search team members say that as they discovered that tens of thousands of magnetic tape boxes had disappeared from the enormous government records center, their hope waned for ever finding the original moon landing footage recorded on the lunar camera operated by the astronauts. NASA says the picture was much clearer than the TV broadcast of the historic moment. How sad...

But wait! There's hope.

After piecing together a complete version of the moonwalk from a variety of broadcast television sources from around the world, NASA has contracted with Lowry Digital in Burbank, the digital restoration firm responsible for restoring movies from "Bambi" to "Star Wars," to make the "original" better. They're touching it up, making it less fuzzy and brighter so you can actually make out Neil Armstrong descending from the "Eagle" instead of the dark blob viewers saw in 1969.

So while technology makes it so that our generation and future generations will see the moonwalk with more clarity than ever before, the fact remains that it's not the original. Are we tampering with history, or preserving a moment?

--Catherine Lyons

Credit: Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Companies that offer downloadable movies and music online without licenses from the copyright holders typically wind up answering lawsuits from the Hollywood studios and the major labels. So it was odd to see a news release announcing the impending launch of Zookz, a site that offers unlimited music or movie downloads for about $10 a month (or both for $18). That's a bit like waving a red cape in front of a couple of bulls, isn't it? But Zookz believes it's in the clear, legally, thanks to the World Trade Organization. It's a far-fetched argument, but you've got to give Zookz credit for nerve.

The main differences between Zookz and most online outlets for bootlegged goods are that it's not a file-sharing network and that the content isn't free. Instead, it's just insanely cheap. The company's impossibly low prices reflect the fact that it doesn't pay for most of its inventory or share revenues with  copyright holders. All the proceeds go to Zookz, its 10-person staff in St. Johns, Antigua, and (through taxes) the Antiguan government.

How can it get away with this, you ask? I'm not sure it can, but here's its argument....