the(new)mediaslut

Lighthouse Publishing loses sweet sweet Clarice

Posted in Media & PR, Uniquely Singapore by the(new)mediaslut on the August 29th, 2007

Lighthouse Publications, publishers for Marketing Magazine, has lost Clarice Cham to an unknown greener pasture.

Clarice Cham will start at her new place in mid-September.

Replacing her is Cherisse Beh whose byline has been appearing on www.marketing-interactive.com recently.

CNET Asia goes craving for new gadgets

Posted in Media & PR, Uniquely Singapore by the(new)mediaslut on the August 28th, 2007

CNET Asia has launched the Asia version of Crave.

Crave will see the journalists at the publication blogging about the latest gadgets news.

Interestingly, some entries have been sourced from external online publications like Gizmodo and Engdget.

Will the Asia Crave gets readers craving for new gadgets?

Email 101

Posted in Indonesia, Media & PR, The Asia Bad Pitch Project by the(new)mediaslut on the August 28th, 2007

This is a second email boo-boo incident committed by a PR person.

Found at the Loosewire blog by Jeremy Wagstaff, the contributor for Wall Street Journal Asia received a press release only to find that it is in a language he has little or no linguistic proficiency in.

“I dread to think how much eBay is paying Waggener Edstrom to handle press relations for their Toy Crusade,” blogged Jeremy Wagstaff .

“At least I think that’s what is being launched — all the press stuff I received this morning, including image-laden email, attachments was all in Chinese. Oh, except for the headline.

“I know I should, but I don’t speak Chinese.”

Waggener Edstrom apologised for the error and admitted that an executive put in a wrong distribution list for the press release in question.

That PR person must be hating the invention of the blog.

Uncovered: Commsday’s undercover contributor

Posted in Indonesia, Malaysia Boleh!, Media & PR, Telcos, Thailand, Uniquely Singapore by the(new)mediaslut on the August 27th, 2007

Decisive Publications revealed a new contributor in her edition of Commsday ASEAN today.

A.M. Doncaster highlighted the uproar that Singnet is getting from her subscribers for not putting up a fight against ODEX.

"Subscribers to Singnet are up in arms after it was revealed that the ISP subsidiary of Singtel did nothing to protect subscribers’ private information when Singapore-based anime distributor Odex served a court order seeking to identify alleged copyright violators via IP addresses," wrote Doncaster.

"Ernest Lau, the district judge who presided over the case of Pacific Internet vs Odex, revealed on Thursday that Singnet consented to Odex’s court order without any legal objection.

"The judge found that Pacific Internet owed its subscribers a duty of confidentiality under the Telecommunications Competition Code and Odex could not be granted the order unless the distributor could satisfy that burden of proof.

"Furthermore, the district judge also ruled that Odex was only a sub-licensee and, thus, the animes in question were not entitled to similar protection enjoyed by the original copyright holder or the exclusive licensee under the Copyright Act.. The judge was also unconvinced of the method used to pinpoint the copyright perpetrators via their IP addresses—which are allocated dynamically in the main in Singapore."

Grahame Lynch, publisher for Commsday ASEAN, only described Doncaster as an "armed spy".

ODEX opens Singtel’s can of worms

Posted in Telcos, Uniquely Singapore by the(new)mediaslut on the August 26th, 2007

The Singapore blogosphere is filled with the comments about ODEX losing its case against Pacific Internet for the later to disclose the identities  of their subscribers whose IP addressed tracked for illegaly downloaded ODEX distributed animme.

The judge that disclosed the reason for dismissing the case raise several points about copyrights and introduced many of the "Telecommunications Competition Code".

"3. For Mobile Suit Gundam Seed, the court ruled that Odex had to prove an “extremely strong prima facie case”," wrote Siew Kum Hong.

"The judge’s rationale for this was that Pacnet owed its subscribers a duty of confidentiality under the Telecommunications Competition Code, and hence he would not grant the order unless Odex could satisfy that burden of proof."

The Singapore blogosphere is also aware that Singtel consented to Odex’s application.

Here’s the question for Singtel.

If there is a Telecommunications Competition Code in Singapore that states that the ISPs "owed its subscribers a duty of confidentiality" and if Singtel did not resist or attempt to resist Odex’s application, does this mean that Singtel did not perform one of its duties as an ISP stated in the Telecommunications Competition Code?