Mediaboss Marketing

ORLANDO, Fla., March 8, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --Mindpix Corp.'s (Pinksheets: MPIX.PK - News) subsidiary, eMax Media Inc., has signed a music marketing licensing agreement with Starfest Direct, a division of PBS Holding Inc. Roxanna Weber, CEO of Mindpix stated, "This is the first of several media licensing agreements that are being signed by eMax Media Group and enables them to monetize their media holdings with royalty income. This contract should generate a minimum of three Million dollars in sales to the partnership over the next year. The extensive music and media libraries owned by eMax Media Group are growing each day."

Starfest Direct and eMax Media Group will jointly market downloadable music through the Starfest Direct Network. Starfest Direct is a direct sales company. The media marketing and distribution licensing agreement allows the Starfest Direct network to merchandise 500 songs from the eMax Media's music catalog. eMax Media plans to add more music titles to the agreement throughout each year. This marketing agreement allows both Starfest and eMax Media Group to promote the songs throughout their networks and to add more entertainment content to their delivery systems. Ed Vakser, CEO stated, "Our team is extremely excited to include this new content into our catalog. In the world where Content is king, this is great content and a great business opportunity for our new venture. We are very excited to launch the content as part of our ever expanding catalog. Our joint venture will create one of the largest "on Demand" content systems for the direct sales industry. The vast content and our sales software will be the catalyst of a new global direct sales model."

One of the major enhancements to the Starfest Direct system is the ability to sell digital products. The new download system includes technologies that will control all access to the downloadable product through the use of encrypted keys; allowing the enforcement of download rights, including limiting the number of downloads within a certain period of time. The digital content will be stored directly in the database for even more protection. This prevents someone from "giving away" a download link which would allow someone to download Starfest's new digital product without paying for it.

About PBS Holding Inc.

PBS Holding Inc. is a Publicly Trading Company trading on OTC Markets under the symbol PBHG, http://www.pbsholdinginc.com. The company is focused on growth by mergers and acquisitions of technology, media, multimedia, television, Film productions and content development. As a wholly own subsidiary, Starfest Direct Inc is utilized for its high end Direct Sales Technology EnterpriseSystem. Starfest Direct is a virtual product and services catalog system designed to facilitate sales, membership accounting and maintenance http://www.starfestdirect.com

About Starfest Direct:

Starfest Direct is a direct sales company featuring an aggressive compensation component for professional distributors in network marketing. Using proprietary software andtechnology, the Starfest Direct plan features a unique custom binary and unilevel combination plan with additional lifestyle, team, and executive bonuses.

About Artfest International, Inc.

Artfest International, Inc. brings together artists, investors, decorators, designers, private collectors and art galleries. Artfest International's corporate site is http://www.artfestinternational.com. Artfest's subsidiaries are Art Channel, Inc. (www.artchannel.tv), and PBS Holding Inc., ( PBHG) Starfest Direct, Inc. (www.Starfestdirect.com), offering the most exciting product and rewards program in the history of direct sales marketing. And Tradestar Resources Corporation, (TSRR) a sports and entertainment production company.

eMax Media Inc.

More here:
Mindpix Corp. Announces Music Licensing Agreement Between Subsidiary eMax Media Group and Starfest Direct

Jamie Becklandis a digital and social media strategist at Janrain,where he helps Fortune 1000 companies integrate social media technologies into their websites to improve user acquisition and engagement. He has built online communities since 2004. He tweets as@Beckland.

Never completely off the radar, privacy concerns recently stepped back into the spotlight.

[More from Mashable: What Was Super Tuesdays Top Social Media Moment?]

In the past months alone, privacy issues have emerged from all corners. The California Attorney General is twisting arms for better app disclosures, and startup Path apologized for scraping address books. And during February's OpenDialogue, CEO of Thornley Fallis Joseph Thornley claimed that Facebook violates our privacy day by day, because its impossible to give informed consent. But the privacy conversation has shifted in an important way. In the past, identity providers like Facebook and Google were blasted for their obtuse and complicated privacy policies. Questions still remain on that front, but by and large, identity providers have given users more control, and the uprisings have quelled for the moment. Consider the difference in the response to Facebooks 2007 Beacon program vs. the new Facebook Open Graph protocol. The former was lambasted as a gross violation of user trust, was built without disclosure in mind, and was killed. Eventually Mark Zuckerberg admitted that it was a mistake. By contrast, the frictionless sharing capabilities of the new Open Graph protocols have not seen any serious backlash (despite protests from Marshall Kirkpatrick, who maintains that it doesn't make sense to roadblock a link). The good news is that authorizing third parties to use an existing social identity is a one-way flow of information: from the identity provider to the application that the user has authorized. User profile data from a brand website or app is not shared with Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn or any other identity provider. Your browsing paths are not suddenly available to social networks, and your behavior after authentication is only available to the website you are actually on. But increasingly, the privacy conversation has widened to ask what apps are doing with the permissions they request, and how the information is actually being used. In order to understand what is actually happening with user data, we need to answer three separate questions.

Different identity providers offer differing amounts of information about a user, and require different access credentials. For example, Google delivers a verified and authenticated email address with a basic permission, while Twitter does not deliver any email address at all. My company has indexed the critical data elements and permissions available on more than 20 platforms. On top of what is available, app developers must determine which permissions and data elements they will request from the identity provider. This is implemented on an app-by-app basis; therefore, users can expect no shortcuts when reviewing the now commonplace permission screens that appear when we authenticate through social channels.

[More from Mashable: How to Allow Subscribers on Facebook]

Users can grant apps permission to access field-level information, but if those fields are blank, the identity provider will return a blank value. For example, if the birthday field is not filled out on LinkedIn, users can still use LinkedIn to authenticate, but the application will not be able to automatically send those users free coffee on their birthdays, for example. This is a crude line of defense, but its important to remember. Even when a list of permissions looks long and possibly intimidating, since people use specific identities for different purposes, some of the data may not be available. And with more identity providers offering distinct views into a users identity, its less likely that a complete picture of a user is available from any app in particular.

Its impossible to know exactly what information gets dropped into an applications database, but the reality is that social profile data is incredibly complicated to store and manage. Even when applications receive a data payload from the identity provider, there's no guarantee that the data is being collected somewhere.

However, any profile data that is presented back to the user within the app experience is clearly being stored. If a user sees a list of her friends who also use the app, its clear that the social graph has been shared to the application. For app developers, then, the decision about what permissions to ask for becomes easy: Only ask for what you will use in the experience you are designing. If there is not an immediate use case, dont ask for permission at that time. Its possible to go back to users and ask for additional permissions and data when they want to interact with a specific experience. Align what the user is giving up (his data) with what you are giving him (a valuable way to use his data). Each user will weigh privacy concerns differently, both for himself and for the brand that is requesting the information. The brand relationship, though, ends up being the most important consideration.

In a complicated environment, with so many privacy factors to consider, users often fast-forward their decisions about whether to share social profile data based on soft factors like brand trust. If a user trusts Coke (or the Washington Post, or Zynga), he will likely assume that the brand will use personal data responsibly and for the users benefit. What brands do you trust with your data?

View original post here:
Social Media Privacy: 3 Questions to Ask Before Authorizing Third-Party Apps

07-03-2012 10:43 Teflon Media Group, Chicago's #1 entertainment company for the underground, pulls it off again. We invaded the Rap Factory [2315 W. Fullerton] for "Ballin' Outta Control II hosted by Looch Da Spokesman. Artists included Soundmaster T, D da Don, Tragic, BBI/BMC, Albo, Named Bran, Big Mel, Fatz Mack, Sonny Blac & EMG, Yac of Nu-Money Family Ent., Yung Barz & Monsta Muzik, and Ready Redd

Read more:
Teflon Media Group presents "Ballin' Outta Control 2" - Video

Facebook amended its IPO filing to make it very clear that investors are placing a lot of trust in one person: Mark Zuckerberg.

A new section up front spells out that Zuck controls the majority of voting shares. Facebook's status as a "controlled company" means it does not have to have a majority of independent directors on its board.

Facebook's original IPO filing included this info, but it was hidden in a long "Risk Factors" section.

Now, Facebook seems to be acknowledging that risk up front. Here's the new section, which appears on page 6:

Mr. Zuckerbergs Voting Rights and Our Status as a Controlled Company Mr. Zuckerberg, who after our initial public offering will control more than % [the number is left blank] of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock, will have the ability to control the outcome of matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election of our directors, as well as the overall management and direction of our company. In the event of his death, the shares of our capital stock that Mr. Zuckerberg owns will be transferred to the persons or entities that he designates. Because Mr. Zuckerberg controls a majority of our outstanding voting power, we are a controlled company under the corporate governance rules for publicly-listed companies. Therefore, we are not required to have a majority of our board of directors be independent, nor are we required to have a compensation committee or an independent nominating function. In light of our status as a controlled company, our board of directors has determined not to have an independent nominating function and to have the full board of directors be directly responsible for nominating members of our board.

There's also some new wording under the risk factors section about Zuckerberg's control:

This concentrated control could delay, defer, or prevent a change of control, merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets that our other stockholders support, or conversely this concentrated control could result in the consummation of such a transaction that our other stockholders do not support. This concentrated control could also discourage a potential investor from acquiring our Class A common stock due to the limited voting power of such stock relative to the Class B common stock and might harm the market price of our Class A common stock.

The amended filing also adds new bankers to the list of underwriters, and reveals that Facebook has permission to take out a $5 billion line of credit, as we reported earlier.

More From Business Insider

Read more here:
Latest Facebook Filing Makes Very Clear Who's In Control

ONE of Australia's leading advertisers believes proposed media reforms would inflict Australians with the same limits on the free press as Russia and Cuba.

Harold Mitchell today told a Brisbane audience the reforms proposed by the Independent Media Inquiry were "crap", designed by people who did not understand free choice.

"Firstly, they believe that there should be no freedom of the press, but, you know, through all the centuries the greatest way a society can ever continue is by having a free society," Mr Mitchell said.

"You control thoughts and it just won't happen."

Mr Mitchell is founder of Mitchell & Partners and executive chairman of Aegis Media Pacific, a company that buys commercial space on all media for some of the world's biggest brands.

He is also the expert chosen by the federal government to advise on how more philanthropists can be encouraged to donate to the arts.

Mr Mitchell told the QUT business leaders forum that some of the reforms proposed by the inquiry could have an equivalent effect to jailing newspaper editors who offended vested interests.

He said: "Now, what sort of a world are we living in when that would be a notion we should have?"

The report by retired judge Ray Finkelstein, QC, presented last week to the federal government, proposes sweeping regulation of newspapers.

It urged the government to set up a taxpayer-funded body to regulate all of Australia's news and current affairs across all media: a statutory watchdog to set standards and handle complaints.

Read more here:
Media reforms 'as bad as Russia, Cuba'