<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;myspace&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 11:20:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>FTC To Monitor MySpace And/Or Empty Space For 20 Years</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/17433418836/ftc-to-monitor-myspace-andor-empty-space-20-years.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/17433418836/ftc-to-monitor-myspace-andor-empty-space-20-years.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed many times that the main <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120420/10560418585/to-read-all-privacy-policies-you-encounter-youd-need-to-take-month-off-work-each-year.shtml">problem</a> with privacy policies is that their very nature encourages companies to actually do <i>less</i> to care about your privacy.  That is, the only way a company gets in trouble with their privacy policy is if they don't obey their own privacy policy.  Thus, it's much smarter to create a privacy policy that effectively says that the company can do whatever it wants and doesn't have to respect users' privacy.  In that way, it's much harder to actually violate someone's privacy.  Considering that no one actually reads these privacy policies (and for the few who do, no one understands them) means that it's even easier to make that work.  Still, however, some companies go beyond their own privacy policies, and the FTC has to step in and slap them around.  The latest... is MySpace.
<br /><br />
Yes, MySpace.  That also-ran social networking site that no one uses any more <a href="http://ftc.gov/opa/2012/05/myspace.shtm" target="_blank">has come to an agreement with the FTC</a> over violating its own privacy policy.  Specifically, it appears that MySpace made it <i>possible</i> for advertisers to <a href="http://techatftc.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/syncing-and-the-ftcs-myspace-settlement/">associate identities with advertisements</a> so that advertisers <i>could</i> build a direct profile of an individual.  Of course, it doesn't appear that anyone actually did this.  The settlement means that MySpace will undergo "regular privacy assessments" for the next 20 years.  I have two thoughts on this: first, there is almost no chance that MySpace exists in 20 years.  Second, I never understand this 20 year deadline on FTC deals.  If, miraculously, there is still a MySpace in 2033, it can go back to skimping on its privacy protections?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/17433418836/ftc-to-monitor-myspace-andor-empty-space-20-years.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/17433418836/ftc-to-monitor-myspace-andor-empty-space-20-years.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120508/17433418836/ftc-to-monitor-myspace-andor-empty-space-20-years.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>why-you-write-broad-privacy-policies</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120508/17433418836</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Apr 2012 11:09:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Guy Loses Probation Because Court Decides That Facebook &#038; MySpace Are 'Electronic Bulletin Boards'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120331/02005318318/guy-loses-probation-because-court-decides-that-facebook-myspace-are-electronic-bulletin-boards.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120331/02005318318/guy-loses-probation-because-court-decides-that-facebook-myspace-are-electronic-bulletin-boards.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ No link on this one because the decision isn't "published" and isn't online, but a court in Arizona has revoked the probation on a guy and sent him to jail for ten years, based on a debate over the classification of social networking sites Facebook and MySpace.  Now, we should be clear upfront that the guy in question, William Hall, was convicted of some pretty seriously disturbing crimes and, as such, I have <i>no problem</i> whatsoever with him getting whatever punishment the courts decide is within the law.  Specifically, the ruling notes that in October of 2010, "Hall was convicted of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under the age of fifteen, a class three felony, and surreptitious photographing, a class five felony."  This post in no way defends Hall.  My interest is just in the specific legal reasoning behind the revocation of the probation.  Part of the probation was that he was limited in how he could use a computer.  The court didn't completely ban internet usage or computer usage (something we've argued is overkill), especially noting that he made his living doing web design.  However, it did bar him from visiting specific sites.  At issue was guideline #13 in his probation agreement, which says:
<blockquote><i>
I will not use an electronic bulletin board system, Internet
relay chat channel, DCC chat channel, instant messaging, newsgroup, user group,
peer to peer (e.g.Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, etc).
</i></blockquote>
However, the court (and the probation officer) argued that he violated this section because of his use of Facebook and MySpace.  Hall notes that he used those sites to further his web design business and that he specifically told his probation officer that he was going to use those sites and was told that Facebook was fine and that it wouldn't be blocked.  There seems to be some dispute over this, as the probation officer says that he believed that Facebook counted under the Guideline listed above.  During the trial, there was the following exchange with the "surveillance officer" being the "S.O.":
<blockquote><i>
Q: Can you show me where on [the Guidelines] [Hall] is not allowed to use social
 networking sites?
<br /><br />
 S.O.: Yes, No. 13. I will not use any electronic bulletin board system[s] and
 social networking [is] underneath bulletin board system[s] because [users] can
 post comments and that's what a bulletin board system is.
<br /><br />
 Q: The end of paragraph 13 it gives examples of Napster, Gnutella, Freenet. Does
 not say Facebook, does it?
<br /><br />
 S.O.: It is so broad. There [are] thousands and thousands.
<br /><br />
 Q: Everybody knows Facebook. It doesn't say Facebook, does it?
<br /><br />
 S.O.: This is a little older. It-but it's a category of bulletin board systems
 which is what all networking systems are.
</i></blockquote>
Again, Hall has been convicted of a very serious crime, and there were a few other parts of the case that raise other questions (he moved without informing the probation officer properly, he was supposed to only have one computer but didn't get rid of his second computer, later on access to Facebook was blocked but he still tried to go there...).  It may very well be that he deserves to be in jail.  But, for whatever reason, the court first granted him probation, and if we're going to do that, then the rules for probation should be clear.  If they didn't want him going to social networking sites, they should have been explicit that this included social networking sites.  It wasn't like this happened in the early days of Facebook.  He was convicted at the end of 2010.  Facebook was huge (and MySpace had already grown and declined).  The probation rules list out other specific names.  It's ridiculous that they didn't simply add "social networking" or the specific names of Facebook and MySpace if they really wanted to forbid him from going to those sites.  Either way, the lower court and now the appeals court (Arizona state courts) have both decided that Facebook and MySpace are covered by Guideline #13 despite the unclear language.  At the very least, one hopes that Arizona will update its guidelines for the sake of clarity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120331/02005318318/guy-loses-probation-because-court-decides-that-facebook-myspace-are-electronic-bulletin-boards.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120331/02005318318/guy-loses-probation-because-court-decides-that-facebook-myspace-are-electronic-bulletin-boards.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120331/02005318318/guy-loses-probation-because-court-decides-that-facebook-myspace-are-electronic-bulletin-boards.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>definitions-matter</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120331/02005318318</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:18:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Indian Court Says Service Providers Are Liable For Users' Copyright Infringement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/03363015429/indian-court-says-service-providers-are-liable-users-copyright-infringement.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/03363015429/indian-court-says-service-providers-are-liable-users-copyright-infringement.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked many times about the importance of the various safe harbors in the DMCA and the CDA, in the US, in protecting service providers from liability for actions by their users (e.g., YouTube should not be legally responsible if one of its users uploads an infringing work).  Other countries have not been nearly as strong on this, though many seem to recognize the basic reasons to not make service providers liable.  Unfortunately, it looks like India may have just done away with such safe harbors in a recent decision.  <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Amlan Mohanty</a> alerts us to the detailed writeup he just did about a <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-safe-harbour-for.html target="_blank">lawsuit against MySpace</a> in India, and the <a href="http://spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2011/08/death-of-safe-harbour-for_06.html" target="_blank">reasoning of the decision</a>, which definitely appears to wipe out protections for intermediaries and suggests they're perfectly liable for actions of their users.
<br /><br />
I'm certainly not an expert on Indian law, but it really sounds like yet another case of bad legal drafting by lawmakers, in which they approved two laws that seemed to contradict each other.  The end result is pretty ridiculous, as was some of the reasoning.  For example, the court claimed that because MySpace put in some tools to deal with infringement, that could show it had "knowledge" of infringement.  In other words, it seems that according to this ruling, a company is safer in India (though not in most other countries) if it has <i>no policies</i> and <i>no tools</i> to deal with infringement, so that it can claim no knowledge.  That's ridiculous.
<br /><br />
However, the court builds on this form of "knowledge" to say that the law requires a site to block infringement if it has such knowledge...  In the US, this (mostly, with one exception) means <i>actual</i> knowledge of <i>specific</i> infringing works via a DMCA takedown notice.  But, in this ruling the court appears to say that the general knowledge, proved by the mitigation tools, means that MySpace has an obligation to find and block all infringing works, based on just a list given to them by rights holders.  Separately, they claim that because MySpace put ads into the videos at issue, it showed that they were reviewing the videos, and thus should have reviewed them for infringement.  That such ad insertions are likely automated (and most certainly not done by copyright law experts) does not seem to occur to the court.
<br /><br />
Then there's this whopper.  The court apparently decides that MySpace must do a "preliminary check in all the cinematograph works relating Indian titles before communicating the works to the public rather  than  falling  back  on  post  infringement  measures."  Yup.  There go any safe harbors.  If you're a service provider online with Indian users... you may want to beware...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/03363015429/indian-court-says-service-providers-are-liable-users-copyright-infringement.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/03363015429/indian-court-says-service-providers-are-liable-users-copyright-infringement.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/03363015429/indian-court-says-service-providers-are-liable-users-copyright-infringement.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>safe-harbors-be-damned</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110808/03363015429</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Spamford Wallace Surrenders To The FBI; May Finally Go To Jail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/03514615403/spamford-wallace-surrenders-to-fbi-may-finally-go-to-jail.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/03514615403/spamford-wallace-surrenders-to-fbi-may-finally-go-to-jail.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ If you're an internet "old timer" who paid attention to the early "spam wars," you know the name of Sanford "Spamford" Wallace.  While plenty of people have been described as "the spam king," he was the original kingpin (starting in the junk fax business, and then moving on to email in the mid-90s).  He was proud of being called the spam king... but after the business started to become risky, he claimed that he "retired" in the late 90s, and (partially) owned a nightclub.  However, the lure of the spam was apparently too much.   He jumped into the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041008/091259.shtml">spyware</a> business and ran into trouble with the FTC.  Things got weird when Wallace <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050721/0223259.shtml">disappeared</a> and his lawyer asked to withdraw from the case, noting that he couldn't reach Wallace.  Wallace was hit with a massive fine from the FTC, which it appears he ignored.  
<br /><br />
He then moved on to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080429/020118974.shtml">spamming MySpace</a>, which got him sued.  His strategy was established: he just ignored the lawsuit.  The end result?  A <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080513/1654471104.shtml">$234 million fine</a>.  Of course, MySpace went downhill and up came Facebook.  Facebook <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090303/1211033966.shtml">sued him</a> in 2009 and won an astounding <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091029/1840516725.shtml">$711 million</a>.  This time, Wallace actually did show up in court, but claimed he was totally bankrupt.  We wondered, at the time, if there was actually anything that could be done to stop him, since he seemed to just keep on spamming, and the fines (and some of the cases themselves) being issued against him were just ignored.  There were some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/1932105220.shtml">questions</a> two years ago if he'd finally be brought up on <i>criminal</i> charges, and it appears that's finally happened.
<br /><br />
Wallace apparently <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20088487-93/spam-king-wallace-indicted-for-facebook-spam/?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20&#038;dlvrit=142337" target="_blank">surrendered to the FBI</a> after an indictment last month.  He's now facing 40 years in jail and a potential $2 million fine (which seems like nothing compared to the earlier fines).
<br /><br />
Some of the details in the article also suggest that Wallace simply couldn't stay away from Facebook, despite a court order not to access the site at all:
<blockquote><i>
Wallace, who was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel in 2009 not to access Facebook, was also charged with violating that order by accessing the social network on an airline flight from Las Vegas to New York in April 2009 and by maintaining an account under the name David Sinful-Saturdays Fredericks for a few weeks earlier this year. 
</i></blockquote>
I will say that 40 years sounds excessive.  However, it also seems clear that he has no interest in following the law when it comes to these things.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/03514615403/spamford-wallace-surrenders-to-fbi-may-finally-go-to-jail.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/03514615403/spamford-wallace-surrenders-to-fbi-may-finally-go-to-jail.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110805/03514615403/spamford-wallace-surrenders-to-fbi-may-finally-go-to-jail.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110805/03514615403</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:33:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>How Low Has MySpace Sunk? It's About To Be Sold For Less Than $30 Million</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/10325514890/how-low-has-myspace-sunk-its-about-to-be-sold-less-than-30-million.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/10325514890/how-low-has-myspace-sunk-its-about-to-be-sold-less-than-30-million.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Way back in 2005, when News Corp. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050718/127249.shtml">bought Intermix</a>, which (believe it or not) was the parent company of MySpace, we focused on the fact that Intermix was big in the spyware/adware business, and didn't even pay that much attention to the MySpace part of the deal (silly us).  Believe it or not, that was the point at which MySpace was just really starting to catch on.  The whole thing cost $580 million, and a year later, one of the company's founders, Brad Greenspan, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061005/104155.shtml">sued News Corp.</a>, claiming that there was fraud involved and MySpace should have been valued at $20 <i>billion</i>.  Of course, the story since then has been one of a big downhill slope.  While MySpace had always focused on music, over the last couple of years, at every music conference I've attended, people have joked about the fact that no one uses MySpace at all any more.   And so it's come to this.  Reports are now spreading that News Corp. is looking to <a href="http://allthingsd.com/20110628/myspace-sale-process-drags-on-with-an-end-of-week-deal-goal/?mod=socialflow" target="_blank">unload what's left of MySpace for between $20 and $30 million</a>.  Oh, and in a bit of interesting timing, Facebook is preparing to launch its new music service <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20073004-501465.html" target="_blank">next month</a>.  How quickly things change...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/10325514890/how-low-has-myspace-sunk-its-about-to-be-sold-less-than-30-million.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/10325514890/how-low-has-myspace-sunk-its-about-to-be-sold-less-than-30-million.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/10325514890/how-low-has-myspace-sunk-its-about-to-be-sold-less-than-30-million.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>destruction-of-value</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110628/10325514890</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lawsuits Filed Against Twitter, Facebook &#038; MySpace For Confirming That A User No Longer Wanted Text Messages</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110429/16381114089/lawsuits-filed-against-twitter-facebook-myspace-confirming-that-user-no-longer-wanted-text-messages.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110429/16381114089/lawsuits-filed-against-twitter-facebook-myspace-confirming-that-user-no-longer-wanted-text-messages.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, class action lawsuits in action.  If you want an idea of how the class action lawsuit process is often used for completely ridiculous purposes, just take a look at three separate lawsuits filed by a bunch of California lawyers.  Each lawsuit is separate (and embedded below), and all three were <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/ericgoldman/statuses/64082014067892224" target="_blank">pointed out by Eric Goldman</a>.  The lawsuits are against Twitter, Facebook and MySpace, and all are basically identical, other than the plaintiff.  They're all attempts to file class actions against these companies for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which is supposed to block unsolicited contact to mobile phone lines.  In all three cases, the plaintiffs were people who <i>willingly</i> turned on a feature in early April to receive text messages from each of these services.  At some later date (probably a few days), each plaintiff chose to no longer receive those text messages, and responded to a message received by texting back "stop."  As is quite typical, each of these services sent a message back to <i>confirm</i> that the person no longer wanted to receive such text messages.  This is a completely standard procedure.  And yet, these lawsuits claim that <i>those</i> messages broke the law, because the second the "stop" message was sent, any and all future messages, even the confirmation message, were unsolicited:
<blockquote><i>
Plaintiff continued to receive text message notifications from Defendant. At
some point Plaintiff decided that he no longer wanted to receive text message
notifications on his cellular telephone from Defendant.
<br />
Plaintiff then responded to Defendant&rsquo;s last text message notification by
replying &ldquo;stop.&rdquo;
<br /><br />
At this point, Plaintiff withdrew any type of express or implied consent to
receive text message notification to his cellular telephone.
<br /><br />
In response to receiving this revocation of consent, Defendant then
immediately sent another, unsolicited, confirmatory text message to Plaintiff&rsquo;s
cellular telephone.
</i></blockquote>
I can't see any of these lawsuits getting very far, and one would think there should be some sort of sanctions for setting up a situation like this solely for the purpose of filing a class action lawsuit.  A confirmation message that the service provider is not to contact you again is hardly an unsolicited contact.  It seems like it should be easy to argue that it was very much solicited by the individual issuing the "stop" command.  That this law firm filed all three of these identical lawsuits at about the same time, also suggests that the message was very much solicited in that this law firm <i>wanted</i> to receive the confirmation message, solely for the purpose of filing a silly class action lawsuit (or three).  The thing is, if this lawsuit goes anywhere, it'll create more of a hassle.  Many of us <i>like</i> receiving a confirmation that we've been unsubscribed from something.  This is clearly not the intent of the law, and one hopes that the courts will slap this down quickly.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110429/16381114089/lawsuits-filed-against-twitter-facebook-myspace-confirming-that-user-no-longer-wanted-text-messages.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110429/16381114089/lawsuits-filed-against-twitter-facebook-myspace-confirming-that-user-no-longer-wanted-text-messages.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110429/16381114089/lawsuits-filed-against-twitter-facebook-myspace-confirming-that-user-no-longer-wanted-text-messages.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>frivolous-lawsuits</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110429/16381114089</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:45:22 PST</pubDate>
<title>How Facebook Used White Space To Crush Myspace</title>
<dc:creator>Ross Pruden</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/16303012675/how-facebook-used-white-space-to-crush-myspace.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/16303012675/how-facebook-used-white-space-to-crush-myspace.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Mike talks a lot about disruptive innovation, about how -- despite all outward appearances -- newcomers can compete and even usurp the establishment (which are also called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaKgMcFP4Mo">"entrants" and "incumbents" by Clayton Christensen</a>). The examples are plentiful: Microsoft Money was outfoxed by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090612/0032535204.shtml">Intuit's Quicken</a>, Nike's pre-loaded iPhone app was leapfrogged by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100912/22341910973/runkeeper-s-ability-to-outrun-nike-adidas-shows-how-big-companies-don-t-always-copy-win.shtml">RunKeeper</a>, Blockbuster was run into the ditch by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/17512510807.shtml">Netflix</a>, Kodak was surprised by the swift adoption of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100808/00561810539.shtml">digital cameras</a>... the evidence shows again and again that the size of the company and vastness of its resources do not necessarily guarantee its <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080517/1646181150.shtml">market dominance</a>.
<br><br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/#!/gleonhard/status/25948254319415296" target="_blank">Gerd Leonard</a> tipped me off to a great Forbes article by Adam Hartung called <a href="http://blogs.forbes.com/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/" target="_blank">How Facebook Beat Myspace</a>. For anyone who used both of those social networks, the grievances against Myspace are easy to list: too many ads, irrelevant ads, poor programming leading to browser crashes and typographic eyesores, letting users customize their profiles to such a degree that profile pages would either take too long to load (because of 50+ 10MB images) or the colors were simply too garish to view without getting a headache. Myspace, for all its fantastic social networking tools which had been hitherto unavailable, still had serious design flaws, and Myspace users saw Facebook as a better run and cleaner social network. <i>That's</i> why we all migrated.
<br><br>
Hartung bypasses the banalities of the user experience to examine the differences in business management approaches at Facebook and Myspace. He begins by rewinding the clock to remind us just how popular Myspace was at the peak of its success. If you remember, Facebook was a total nobody at that time. And then, something went awry... a change in the wind:
<blockquote><i>What went wrong? A lot of folks will be relaying the tactics of things done and not done at MySpace. As well as tactics done and not done at Facebook.  But underlying all those tactics was a very simple management mistake News Corp. made. News Corp tried to guide MySpace, to add planning, and to use &ldquo;professional management&rdquo; to determine the business&rsquo;s future. That was fatally flawed when competing with Facebook which was managed in White Space, letting the marketplace decide where the business should go.</i></blockquote>
"White Space" is a relatively new management term that Hartung advocates in his book, <i>Seizing the White Space</i>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Space_(management)">Wikipedia describes White Space</a> as the area in a business' hierarchy that exists <i>between</i> functions within the hierarchy, much like the unused space in your kitchen cupboard. White Space is the "handoff between functions where misunderstandings and delays occur", where "things often fall between the cracks or disappear into black holes". Hartung also calls White Space "a location for new thinking, testing and learning" in order to "evolve new formulae for business success free from the existing Defend and Extend culture."
<br><br>
Hartung then offers up the meat of his argument -- that Facebook conquered Myspace not because Facebook offered better features, but because <i>it looked to its users for ideas and then created those features</i>:
<blockquote><i>...the brilliance of Mark Zuckerberg was his willingness to allow Facebook to go wherever the market wanted it. Farmville and other social games -- why not? Different ways to find potential friends -- go for it. The founders kept pushing the technology to do anything users wanted.  If you have an idea for networking on something, Facebook pushed its tech folks to make it happen. And they kept listening. And looking within the comments for what would be the next application -- the next promotion -- the next revision that would lead to more uses, more users and more growth.
<br><br>
And that's the nature of White Space management. No rules. Not really any plans. No forecasting markets. Or foretelling uses. No trying to be smarter than the users to determine what they shouldn't do. Not prejudging ideas so as to limit capability and focus the business toward a projected conclusion. To the contrary, it was about adding, adding, adding and doing whatever would allow the marketplace to flourish. Permission to do whatever it takes to keep growing. And resource it as best you can -- without prejudice as to what might work well, or even best. Keep after all of it. What doesn't work stop resourcing, what does work do more.
<br><br>
Contrarily, at NewsCorp the leaders of MySpace had a plan. NewsCorp isn't run by college kids lacking business sense. Leaders create Powerpoint decks describing where the business will head, where they will invest, how they will earn a positive ROI with projections of what will work -- and why -- and then plans to make it happen. They developed the plan, and then worked the plan. Plan and execute. The professional managers at News Corp looked into the future, decided what to do, and did it. They didn't leave direction up to market feedback and crafty techies -- they ran MySpace like a professional business.
<br><br>
And how'd that work out for them?</i></blockquote>
The tendency to plan for any daring enterprise is irresistible, and critically necessary in many cases. But Hartung's point is that innovation is a different beast from other types of business management. When you choose to innovate clever, competitive solutions to new market conditions, you have to be open to the possibility that you might create a newer business model that cannibalizes or "devalues" your current product or service. And so we arrive at the so-called <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091116/2307256958.shtml">Innovator's Dilemma</a> -- do you tear down the walls of your temple to build a better temple? Or do you let someone else tear down your temple so <i>they</i> can build a better one? When you're an incumbent business like Nike, Microsoft, Blockbuster, or Kodak, you probably have so much financial investment in your legacy business model that you would rather turn a blind eye to all those young upstarts who seem to understand the market much better than you. After all, you have the experience, and they don't, right? Your staff went to Harvard and Duke and Stanford, right? Aren't your Excel spreadsheets of ROI projections your best protection against unexpected market reversals? You've produced 100 movies and they haven't, so what could these whippersnappers possibly know about the business of filmmaking?
<br><br>
Planning is of course essential for many parts of business but, Hartung notes, you really can't plan what people are going to respond to the most, and Zuckerberg understands that at a fundamental level. I once read an interview where the reporter noted how Zuckerberg constantly asks his colleagues, "Knowing what you know now, what would you do differently? And how do we get there?" This explains why Facebook revamps their site every six months... but also why Facebook continues to compete (and very effectively) with looming competitors like Twitter. (In passing, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100808/00561810539.shtml">Netflix</a> has also thrived from constant experimentation and listening to its users. Consequently, new features pop up on Netflix all the time that improve their service... and customers remain loyal because of that.)
<br><br>
But this point should not be glossed over. At the heart of Facebook's success is Zuckerberg's willingness to "destroy" Facebook to make it better and more competitive. Facebook was once the entrant, and now it is the incumbent  and will stay the incumbent <i>for as long as Zuckerberg retains the attitude of an entrant</i>. Incumbents face a choice of abandoning much of their expensive infrastructure to adapt to a changing market, whereas entrants face no such choice -- quite the opposite, entrants have nothing to lose. They can try anything. Facebook crushed Myspace because Zuckerberg was focused on growing the user base by providing the things users asked for, rather than only providing the things that would grow the company's bottom line. Zuckerberg's second question, "How do we get there?" illustrates how he's <i>constantly</i> experimenting and building bridges from new and radical ideas to the current and static ideas. Myspace, being too preoccupied with planning, ROI, etc., never fully understood how important adaptability was to their business model.
<br><br>
Hartung concludes with the most important point of all:
<blockquote><i>MySpace demonstrates a big fallacy of modern management.  The belief that smart MBAs, with industry knowledge, will perform better.  That "good management" means you predict, you forecast, you plan, and then you go execute the plan.... Big failures -- like Circuit City, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM -- are full of extremely bright, well educated (Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, Wharton) MBAs who are prepared to study, analyze, predict, plan and execute.  But it turns out their crystal ball is no better than -- well -- college undergraduates.</i></blockquote>
There's an element of ego in play here -- legacy businesses are rarely humble enough to admit they can still learn from the newcomers, and that's to be expected. It's a convenient reaction to view emerging market developments as fads, gimmicks, or flavors-of-the-month and, as such, unworthy of diluting the company's resources by devoting extra time, money, and energy to research them. The fact is that many of these "fads" might very well be a waste of time and resources. By next year, they may have come and gone. And yet entrants view these "fads" with an open mind, and choose to tinker endlessly with them until the market reacts favorably to one of their experiments. 
<br><br>
If anything, Myspace's spectacular failure underscores exactly how important it is to listen to others regardless of their experience or educational background. Yes, of course, experience is a factor in lending weight to someone's ideas, but good judgment is an equally important factor, if not more so. You needn't have had <i>any</i> experience producing horse-drawn carriages to make a sound judgment about how obsolete horse-drawn carriages would be with the coming automobile.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/16303012675/how-facebook-used-white-space-to-crush-myspace.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/16303012675/how-facebook-used-white-space-to-crush-myspace.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110114/16303012675/how-facebook-used-white-space-to-crush-myspace.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>knowing-what-you-know-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110114/16303012675</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:37:59 PST</pubDate>
<title>Should MySpace Friends &amp; Photos Be Enough Evidence To Convict Someone Of Criminal Gang Activity</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/16324412437/should-myspace-friends-photos-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-someone-criminal-gang-activity.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/16324412437/should-myspace-friends-photos-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-someone-criminal-gang-activity.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Gangs and gang violence may be a serious problem in some areas, but does that mean we should make people guilty based on very loose associations?  Venkat Balasubramani has a post about a recent appeals court ruling in Ohio, in which some defendants were convicted of "participation in criminal gang activity," <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/12/myspace_profile_1.htm" target="_blank">almost entirely based on their MySpace friends and photographs</a>.  The police officers initially testified that gang members were using social networking sites more and more frequently, and then went full on charging guilt by association:
<blockquote><i>
    Officer Criss . . . noted [defendants] were friends on MySpace. Mr. Owens was pictured in two photographs on Mr. McCraney's MySpace page. In one of the photographs, Mr. Owens was wearing all black and he was standing with several other people who were wearing all black, or black and red. Further, several of the people in the photograph were displaying gang hand signs. The other photograph from Mr. McCraney's page depicted [defendants, along with] a known gang member.
<br><br>
    Officer Criss also discussed photographs taken from Mr. Owens' own MySpace page. One of the photographs depicted Mr. Owens in a red hat and a fur coat. Officer Criss said this was significant because red is a gang color and the fur coat is a status symbol in the gang community. In addition, Mr. Owens' gold teeth were also alluded to as being a status symbol. Another photograph from Mr. Owens' MySpace page depicted Mr. Owens holding a large sum of cash and wearing red and black clothing. Further, dollar signs are superimposed all over the photograph. Again Officer Criss stated that red and black are associated with the Bloodline gangs and the money symbols and the display of a large amount of cash represented that Mr. Owens was able to get large sums of money.
</i></blockquote>
This was pretty much the crux of the evidence of gang activity.  The court also heard that one of the defendants had a previous conviction for dealing marijuana, and the police noted that "gangs primarily are involved with the sale of drugs," but no other evidence was used to tie that conviction to any actual gang activity.  That seems like incredibly thin evidence, but the court decided that it was sufficient to prove criminal gang activity.
<br><br>
One judge dissented, noting just how thin the evidence appeared to be:
<blockquote><i>
Essentially, the majority's decision allows one to conclude that someone actively participates in a criminal gang if that person has committed theft or drug crimes in the past, wears one color associated with a gang, and associates with people who are in a gang or who make gang hand signs. I also find it troubling that the majority suggests that despite the lack of evidence concerning the significant indicators of participation in gang activity, the gap in the evidence is satisfied simply because an officer stated that he believed Mr. Owens actively participated in a criminal gang. 
</i></blockquote>
That judge also details how even the thin evidence was even thinner than the court suggested.  It noted that none of the photographs with gang members even appeared on this guy's own MySpace website, but on another's.  And he wasn't seen making the gang hand signs in any of them -- others are.  In other words, if you're in a photo on a social network with people making gang signs and wearing some rather common colors that are also associated with a gang, you can be convicted of criminal gang activities.  That doesn't seem right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/16324412437/should-myspace-friends-photos-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-someone-criminal-gang-activity.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/16324412437/should-myspace-friends-photos-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-someone-criminal-gang-activity.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101228/16324412437/should-myspace-friends-photos-be-enough-evidence-to-convict-someone-criminal-gang-activity.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>guilty-by-myspace-association</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101228/16324412437</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:30:47 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Using MySpace Photo Of Debtor's Daughter As An Intimidation Tactic Is A No-No</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/17384111435/using-myspace-photo-of-debtor-s-daughter-as-an-intimidation-tactic-is-a-no-no.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/17384111435/using-myspace-photo-of-debtor-s-daughter-as-an-intimidation-tactic-is-a-no-no.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Collections agencies are pretty notorious for pulling out all sorts of tricks to get people to pay up, including finding out info about family members.  However, apparently one collections agency went too far in two specific ways: first, by spoofing the caller-ID to pretend to be a phone call from the woman's mother in law, but perhaps more seriously is <a href="http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/10/14/debt-collector-broke-the-law-by-using-myspace-photo-to-intimidate-consumer/" target="_blank">getting a photo on MySpace of the woman's daughter</a> and using it to suggest that something bad might happen to her:
<blockquote><i>
The first bad decision was to use a caller-ID spoofer to make it look like the collection call was coming from plaintiff's mother in law. The next not-smart use of technology was to access plaintiff's MySpace page, learn that plaintiff had a daughter, and to use that fact to intimidate plaintiff. There was evidence in the record to suggest that the collection agency's "investigator" said to plaintiff, after mentioning plaintiff's "beautiful daughter," something to the effect of "wouldn't it be terrible if something happened to your kids while the sheriff's department was taking you away?"
</i></blockquote>
The woman sued the collections agency and won, as the court found that the agency "engaged in conduct the natural consequence of which was to harass, oppress, or abuse in connection with the collection of the debt; used false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of the debt; and used unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect the debt."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/17384111435/using-myspace-photo-of-debtor-s-daughter-as-an-intimidation-tactic-is-a-no-no.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/17384111435/using-myspace-photo-of-debtor-s-daughter-as-an-intimidation-tactic-is-a-no-no.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/17384111435/using-myspace-photo-of-debtor-s-daughter-as-an-intimidation-tactic-is-a-no-no.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>in-case-you-were-wondering</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101014/17384111435</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:50:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Sad: Why Haven't Other Internet Companies Stood Up For Craigslist Against AGs?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For quite some time now, we've been covering how various state attorneys general have been publicly grandstanding and threatening Craigslist, despite no actual legal basis.  That grandstanding, of course, has "worked."  It's resulted in Craigslist settling twice, and now shutting down the adult services section, leading those ads to migrate elsewhere actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100906/22301010917.shtml">helping</a> those responsible, and making it <i>harder</i> for law enforcement to do its job.  In testimony to Congress, Craigslist is pointing out that many of those other sites are <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/118995-craigslist-breaks-its-silence-on-sex-trafficking-noting-white-house-meeting" target="_blank">not nearly as willing</a> to help law enforcement.
<br /><br />
But there's another issue here.  As Ryan Singel points out, this grandstanding campaign <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/craigslist-open-internet/all/1" target="_blank">is really an attack on the rather important Section 230 safe harbors for online service providers</a>.  Richard Blumenthal, who has led the attack, despite a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100908/18062710949.shtml">lack of jurisdiction or legal basis</a> is currently running for Senate, and apparently is interested in changing Section 230.  Singel asked Blumenthal first under what legal theory Craigslist was liable, and got back vague claims of how its failure to enforce its terms of service violated Connecticut consumer protection laws -- an incredibly weak claim unlikely to stand up to any scrutiny.  But, more seriously, Singel asked about Section 230, and Blumenthal said the law "is outdated and needs revision."
<blockquote><i>
"I support changes clarifying and strengthening the law to hold websites accountable when they knowingly enable or promote illegal activity."
</i></blockquote>
Beware that "enable."  Blumenthal wants to expand massive liability to internet services in a manner that would kill off significant innovation.  Could you enable illegal activity via Google, Facebook, Twitter, Skype or many other popular internet services?  You bet.  Section 230 is designed to make sure the liability actually went to those responsible, not to the service providers and tools they used.  Changing that is incredibly dangerous for innovation.
<br /><br />
And, yet, as Single points out, these other companies haven't stepped up to support Craigslist in the grandstanding against them.  Of course, the PR reasons are clear: no one wants to be in a position where critics could twist their words and misleadingly and falsely claim they "support" exploitation.  But this is a big deal and in keeping quiet, bad things may happen:
<blockquote><i>
The logical extension of what Blumenthal &#038; Co say they want is a world where even they couldn't use Facebook, Twitter and Flickr to connect with their constituents, for fear that one of them (or their political enemies) would plant incriminating material they could then be sued over.
<br /><br />
And even if they were successful, and didn't care about that consequences, would ads for prostitution disappear from the face of the earth? Not likely. The same ads that Craigslist is pilloried for dominate the back pages of alternative weeklies. The printed Yellow Pages carries ads for "Escort Services." You can find them in the Village Voice-owned Backpages.com. And beyond the media world, it's not very hard to find "Massage" parlors in any major U.S. city, where I'd venture to guess, you are more likely to find human-trafficking than you were anywhere on Craigslist. And back in the relative shadows from whence they came would only exploiters of women and children would only have more power.
<br /><br />
The collateral damage of a wrong-headed pursuit Craigslist is an assault on the open internet itself.
</i></blockquote>
Singel also points out, as we have in <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1609299179.shtml">the past</a>, that the key point of grandstanding these days is on the revenue Craigslist made from these ads -- something that only started when these very same AGs forced Craigslist to start charging for the ads as part of an earlier settlement.
<br /><br />
Singel wants to know why other internet companies aren't speaking up.  Because the end result of letting Craigslist hang on its own on this topic is going to come back to haunt them.  Already, in the same Congressional hearings today where Craigslist was attacked, those who pushed this damaging situation on the company are sharpening their knives <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/adult-services-shutdown-is-permanent-craigslist-tells-congress/" target="_blank">for other internet companies</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"Every pimp has a MySpace page," Frundt testified, adding that ads also show up on Backpages.com. "Every john uses a john board and posts information on where to buy children."
<br /><br />
"This has been going on for many years. We must do something about our children being sold on the internet."
</i></blockquote> 
Indeed!  We absolutely must do something -- but the something we should do is use these tools to <i>go after and stop those actually responsible</i> rather than pushing them around the internet, and blaming the tools they use.  That doesn't stop the activity.  It doesn't protect the exploited.  It doesn't help the situation.  It creates a false target, and a situation in which the very principles on which the internet has been built get undermined, at a potentially huge cost to innovation, communication and free speech.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100915/15125911029.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>take-a-stand</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100915/15125911029</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 Jul 2010 15:08:43 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Ghostbuster Sues MySpace For Allowing Another Ghostbuster To Set Up A Website With A Similar Name</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/02110610145.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/02110610145.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Who you gonna call?  Perhaps a better lawyer.  Apparently, a self-professed "ghostbuster" who calls his business "Ghost Scene Investigations" is <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&#038;art_aid=131620" target="_blank">suing MySpace because some other "ghostbuster" is also using the same name and set up a MySpace page about it</a>.  The actual lawsuit claims both copyright and trademark infringement:
<center>
<object id="doc_38867" name="doc_38867" height="300" width="500" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf" style="outline:none;" >                <param name="movie" value="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf">                 </param><param name="wmode" value="opaque">                 </param><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff">                 </param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">                 </param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always">                 </param><param name="FlashVars" value="document_id=34029126&#038;access_key=key-1i810m2wdvfj1da6kpil&#038;page=1&#038;viewMode=list">                 <embed id="doc_38867" name="doc_38867" src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=34029126&#038;access_key=key-1i810m2wdvfj1da6kpil&#038;page=1&#038;viewMode=list" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="300" width="500" wmode="opaque" bgcolor="#ffffff"></embed>             </param></object>
</center>
Of course, as noted in the article, the copyright claim against MySpace makes no sense for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that you can't copyright the name of a company.  Second, MySpace is clearly protected by the safe harbors of the DMCA.   The guy even tries an "inducement" claim against MySpace, which only serves to highlight how ridiculous the concept of making secondary copyright infringement against the law is: people will keep trying to stretch it.  As for the trademark claims, as Eric Goldman notes in the article linked above, you can't trademark a descriptive phrase, and while there isn't a DMCA-style safe harbor for trademarks, courts will often effectively create a safe harbor for third parties unless there's clear evidence that they were really complicit.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/02110610145.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/02110610145.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100709/02110610145.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>who-you-gonna-call?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100709/02110610145</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:53:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Cuomo's New Plan: A Good Idea Or A Chance For More Grandstanding?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1640359873.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1640359873.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As part of NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's grandstanding against child porn, he's mostly been making silly threats against the wrong parties in ways that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100610/1334239771.shtml">don't actually help stop child porn</a> (and could make it worse).  However, his latest announcement actually sounds a lot more reasonable.  His office is putting together a database of offending photos, and <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/103983-creativeq-cuomo-effort-to-keep-child-porn-off-facebook-myspace" target="_blank">letting social networks compare uploads to the database</a> to try to stop the uploads of known offending photos.  I would imagine that it also records who was trying to upload that content.  Some care would need to be taken to make sure that this effort really does focus on actually offending images -- one thing that makes such an effort tricky.  I also do wonder if it makes sense for a gov't agency to be putting together the database, rather than having it done by the industry itself.  On top of that, given Cuomo's earlier grandstanding and his <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080806/1410391912.shtml">usual methods</a>, you have to expect that it would be long before Cuomo would start threatening any social network that <i>doesn't</i> use his system with some sort of bogus (but very, very public) legal threats.  In other words, when the gov't (especially someone like Cuomo) sets up a system like this, how long until he starts acting like it's <i>mandatory</i>, rather than optional?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1640359873.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1640359873.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100617/1640359873.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-ridiculous</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100617/1640359873</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:44:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Juror Didn't Disclose MySpace Friendship With Defendant... Because It Was Just MySpace</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0024149818.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0024149818.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Here's a fun one.  An appeals court in West Virginia has granted a new trial to a defendant because one of the jurors <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/06/appeals_court_i.htm" target="_blank">failed to disclose that she was a "friend" on MySpace with the defendant</a> and had sent him a message during the trial.  The message itself was mostly meaningless ("I can tell ya that God has a plan for you and your life..." etc. and even mentioned "Hey, I don't know you very well"), but the juror never bothered to mention that she knew the defendant at all, let alone well enough to be a MySpace connection.  When asked why, she answered:
<blockquote><i>
I knew in my heart that I didn't know him . . . I should have at least said that . . . he was on MySpace, which really [wasn't] important, I didn't think.
</i></blockquote>
Ouch for MySpace.  Either way, a new trial has been ordered, and yet again questions revolving around social media in the courtroom need to be tackled in court.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0024149818.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0024149818.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100615/0024149818.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>talk-about-damning-myspace</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100615/0024149818</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Jun 2010 03:49:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Careful With That Fake Social Networking Profile; If You 'Personate' Someone, You Can Go To Jail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/0401229640.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/0401229640.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen numerous lawsuits involving schools punishing students for setting up fake social networking profiles of principals or teachers.  However, could setting up a fake profile actually be a criminal offense that gets you sent to jail?  Evan Brown has the news of how a California appeals court has ruled that a guy who set up a fake MySpace profile of his former pastor <a href="http://blog.internetcases.com/2010/05/28/that-bogus-social-networking-profile-can-send-you-to-jail/" target="_blank">can stand trial for the crime of "personation."</a>  Apparently, in California, it's illegal to (a) assume the persona of someone else and then (b) do something while pretending to be that person that could get that person into legal trouble.  So, it's not just setting up the profile that gets you in trouble, but then doing something with the profile (in this case, the guy suggested the pastor used drugs and was gay).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/0401229640.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/0401229640.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100601/0401229640.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>careful-who-you-mock</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100601/0401229640</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:43:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Canadian Supreme Court To Hear Case Over Liability For Linking To Defamatory Information</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100403/0654488862.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100403/0654488862.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that a few years back, Canadian politician Wayne Crookes started <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070420/010122.shtml">suing</a> a whole bunch of sites, including Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo and MySpace, just because of postings on those sites that Crookes felt were libelous.  Whether or not the comments actually were defamatory was a big open question, but a bigger issue was why he was suing the service providers, rather than those actually responsible for the comments.  Some of those lawsuits got <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070905/014534.shtml">tossed out</a> on a jurisdictional technicality, but Crookes then also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070421/191133.shtml">sued</a> some others, claiming libel for just <i>linking</i> to a site that was potentially libelous as well.  One of those sued was Jon Newton, the operator of <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/" target="_blank">P2Pnet.net</a>, a site that many of you read.  Newton had linked to the stories in question, but did not repeat was written in them or offer any commentary -- and yet Crookes claimed that just the links were defamatory.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, both the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081028/0054072663.shtml">district court</a> and the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090918/0118426233.shtml">appeals court</a> said that just linking was not defamatory, but the reasoning was a bit odd, and left some potential issue open.  Now, as a bunch of folks have submitted, the Canadian Supreme Court is <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/02/supreme-libel-links.html" target="_blank">gearing up to take on the issue</a>.  There are really two questions here: whether or not the initial link is defamation, and secondarily, whether or not it becomes defamation if you refuse to take down the link after being alerted to it being defamatory.
<br /><br />
In the US, Section 230 of the CDA protects website publishers in both cases.  In Canada, the law is not at all clear on this issue, and there's a very real threat of a pretty massive chilling effect if the Supreme Court decides that linking (or even refusing to take down a link) can constitute defamation.  Hopefully, the Supreme Court agrees that merely linking should never be seen as defamation -- and preferably, the Canadian Parliament makes this doubly clear by putting in place some basic safe harbors as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100403/0654488862.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100403/0654488862.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100403/0654488862.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>linkety-link</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100403/0654488862</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:57:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Just As Netflix Gets In Trouble For Data Release, MySpace Begins Selling Data</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100314/1714118550.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100314/1714118550.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So, just last week we noted that Netflix had gotten itself into a bit of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100312/1148468542.shtml">hot water</a> for its Netflix prize contest, which used real user data -- which was supposed to be anonymous.  Unfortunately, as with most such data, it wasn't really anonymous, and that's illegal -- especially when it comes to movie rental data.  Because of all that, Netflix has also canceled plans for a follow-up prize competition.  However, just as that happened, reports were coming out that MySpace <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/myspace_bulk_data.php" target="_blank">has begun <i>selling</i> user data</a>.  Among the data up for sale?  "User playlists, mood updates, mobile updates, photos, vents, reviews, blog posts, names and zipcodes.  You would have to imagine that at least some people might not be happy about that.
<br><br>
Now, to be fair, the info you provide MySpace is public -- while the info you provide Netflix is not.  However, you could certainly see some people not being particularly thrilled that MySpace is now directly selling that information, and you have to imagine that <i>someone</i> will file a lawsuit before too long over this data.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: MySpace PR people sent over word that this content is no different than the free public real-time stream, it's just for those unable to capture it, they can now purchase it in a lump sum via this other site, for which MySpace apparently doesn't make any money...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100314/1714118550.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100314/1714118550.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100314/1714118550.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>lawsuits-a'comin?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100314/1714118550</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:10:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Who's Behind The False Rumors That Facebook Might Start Charging?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0802527728.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0802527728.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Way back when Friendster was the super hot social networking startup with an unworkable business model, there was suddenly a rush of rumors that the company was going to start charging for use.  Even though the company never suggested plans to charge, there was an outcry among users -- and I remember getting messages from people threatening to boycott Friendster if it ever did charge.  In fact, many people started suggesting alternatives... with MySpace being a key one.  It wasn't long after this episode that many people really did start migrating over to MySpace.  Later on there were reports that the "rumors" about Friendster charging were actually started (and then spread) by MySpace employees.  And it worked.
<br /><br />
It looks like someone may be trying to pull the same trick with Facebook.  Apparently a bunch of rumors have been spreading about Facebook planning to charge, resulting in huge <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6973757/Facebook-dismisses-rumours-of-charging-plans.html" target="_blank">protest groups in Facebook</a>, and the company needing to make a public denial of any plans to charge.  In Facebook's case, this is even more believable because the company claims that it's already profitable from existing ad sales.  And, knowing how Facebook operates, I can't see anyone there seriously considering charging for use.  They know the idea is preposterous and would destroy the site.
<br /><br />
So the only thing I'm wondering is who kicked off these rumors?  Is it another social network?  Is it MySpace again trying to regain relevance?  Or was it really <a href="http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/fbcharge.asp" target="_blank">just another malware scam</a> to get people to click on unsafe links, that then resulted in a misguided panic?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0802527728.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0802527728.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100113/0802527728.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-gotta-wonder</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100113/0802527728</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:22:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>MySpace Replaces All iMeem Playlists With Ads -- Doesn't Ask Permission</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1708157604.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1708157604.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ With MySpace buying up some of iMeem's assets (and leaving many musicians <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml">with little hope</a> of getting paid what they're owed), one of the big complaints was that all of iMeem's public playlists simply disappeared overnight.  This was particularly obnoxious, because plenty of people had relied on iMeem for <i>legal</i> music streaming of playlists they had put together.  It appears that last week MySpace decided to add insult to injury and quietly <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/myspace-replaces-imeem-playlists-with-ads/?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A wiredbusinessblog %20Blog - Epicenter %20Business%20%20&#038;utm_content=Google Reader#272492549268830512" target="_blank">started replacing all iMeem playlists with giant ads</a>.  I just checked the one iMeem playlist I had created on a different blog, and, sure enough, in its place was a giant flash ad for Beyonce ringtones.
<br /><br />
This should be a warning for anyone using any third party widget maker for placing content on your site.  You're basically giving others control over what they display on your site, but it's particularly obnoxious to replace something like a music playlist with an advertisement.  Many sites that included iMeem playlists were non-commercial, and sneaking ads into them could potentially impact other issues.  As we were recently discussing, Vimeo says that you <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091222/1314187477.shtml">can't post its videos</a> to sites with ads (even though it seems to ignore most people who do).  But what if you had Vimeo videos on a site that also had an iMeem playlist?  Suddenly that site has "gone commercial" with ads, even though the owner of the site might not even realize it.
<br /><br />
As many people are claiming that streaming services like Spotify and the now-Apple-owned Lala are "the future of music," including their ability to post streamable playlists, it's worth remembering what happened in this instance.  It's certainly making me think twice about ever using a third party app for streaming content, knowing that they might just replace it with an ad down the road.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1708157604.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1708157604.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100104/1708157604.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>is-that-legal?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100104/1708157604</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 08:17:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Artists: Don't Expect To Get Paid For What Imeem &#038; Snocap Owe You</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We always hear the record labels and politicians screaming bloody murder over the concept that musicians aren't being paid "what they're owed" due to piracy -- but when there's a situation where musicians might <b>actually</b> not be getting paid what they're owed?  Silence.  A few weeks back, MySpace "bought" Imeem in a fire sale.  But, the details of the deal suggest they didn't actually buy the company, but "certain assets," which means they get to ignore the liabilities.  Guess what those liabilities include?  You got it: <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/12/myspace-imeem-deal/" target="_blank">paying artists what they're owed</a>.  Now, as the Wired article notes, there's nothing technically wrong with MySpace acquiring just the assets, but it is notable that it's the musicians left without getting paid what they're actually owed (not some theoretical concept like what they might be "owed" due to unauthorized file sharing).  And, yet, we don't seem to hear any politicians or record labels screaming about this.  Funny, since they keep insisting that they're really just interested in helping artists...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091212/0856497323.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sorry,-too-bad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091212/0856497323</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Dec 2009 02:29:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Yes, MySpace Is Allowed To Delete MySpace Page That Tries To Show Fake And Real MySpace Celebs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091130/1828537141.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091130/1828537141.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081027/0300142648.shtml">a case</a> brought by a woman named Julie Riggs against MySpace.  The complaint itself is somewhat of an amusing read ("At this point Plaintiff was literally seething with anger to the point that she was now consumed by it").  The main issue was that Riggs had created a website that tried to determine which celebrity profiles on MySpace were real and which were fake.  She was upset (among other things) because (1) there were fake profiles on MySpace (2) MySpace later did something similar itself and (3) MySpace deleted her profile.  After we wrote about the case, we received an angry email from Ms. Riggs telling us we "missed the point" and that MySpace "stole" her idea -- and that we needed to get our story straight.  She never explains how coming up with the same idea is illegal, of course.  Also, my favorite: "What can you expect from site such as yours though."  Indeed.
<br /><br />
Unfortunately, it appears that the district court also "missed the point" and did not get the story straight, because as Eric Goldman points out, <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/11/myspace_quietly.htm" target="_blank">it has dismissed the lawsuit</a>.  However, in this case, it may actually be true that the court missed the point.  As Goldman notes in his discussion of the ruling, the court seems a bit confused about how Section 230 of the CDA works, and may have dismissed parts of the case for rather confused reasons.  Riggs has appealed, so hopefully the Appeals Court fixes the problems (but still dismisses it).  However, again as Goldman notes, this is taking place in the notoriously nutty Ninth Circuit, which often has a problem with reading Section 230 the way everyone else reads Section 230.  Hopefully, they get this one right.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091130/1828537141.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091130/1828537141.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091130/1828537141.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nice-try</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091130/1828537141</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:50:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Recording Industry Making It Impossible For Any Legit Online Music Service To Survive Without Being Too Expensive</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1506486977.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1506486977.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You just knew it would happen again.  Every time the recording industry finally agrees to license a new music service to try to take the "sting" out of "piracy," it demands licensing terms that are ridiculous.  From the execs at the labels' perspective, unless you pay an arm and a leg, you don't get to offer music.  So, a few companies agree, and then realize it's impossible to make any money and shut down.  In the meantime, the whole point of those legal licensed music services (to compete with "pirate" sites and services) is lost entirely.  Wired is chronicling how <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/11/music-too-expensive-to-be-free-too-free-to-be-expensive/" target="_blank">all of the legal music sites are finding it impossible</a> to survive and offer a free music service -- including MySpace music (which beyond not offering much of value in terms of user experience) "is struggling to keep up with its own payments to music copyright holders."
<br /><br />
Of course, it's really no surprise that most of these sites have struggled.  Beyond the ridiculously high licensing rates that the labels forced on them (often by negotiating through lawsuits), none of these sites put together a well thought-out business model.  Instead, they all seemed to think that they could just slap ads on the site and that would be enough.  But, of course, when you're listening to music, you're not looking at that website or paying attention to the ads -- and if the ads got too intrusive, they'd just go elsewhere.  A real business model would have been setting up something more comprehensive, that gave listeners a real reason to buy associated with the music.  Eventually we'll get there, but in the short-term, the graveyard of failed "licensed" music startups will grow, just as more and more "unauthorized" sites grow in popularity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1506486977.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1506486977.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1506486977.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>good-job</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091117/1506486977</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:03:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>Teens Sue School After Being Disciplined For MySpace Photos</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0316256756.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0316256756.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've seen a bunch of stories lately about schools handing out discipline for activities done online, and conflicting court cases on the subject make it fairly unclear where a school's authority to discipline students ends.  In the latest case, two sophomore high school girls posted private photos to their MySpace accounts from a sleepover.  The photos are described as "racy."  While they were set to private, someone copied them, and eventually school administrators saw them and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/31/teens-sue-school-over-pun_n_340844.html" target="_blank">banned the girls from extracurricular activities for a while</a> and also required that the two girls apologize to the (all male) coaches' board.  It also required the girls to undergo therapy sessions.  All this because they posted some silly photos online?   Beyond the question of whether or not the school even has the right to discipline these students for events that had nothing (at all) to do with the school, the punishment also seems to go well beyond the "crime."  Kids do silly/stupid things all the time.  And, yes, these days there are cameraphones and social networks that make these things easier to record and distribute, but it doesn't change the fact that kids are kids.  I doubt there are many adults out there today who didn't do something silly or stupid as a teen.  For those of you who are a bit older, imagine if cameraphones and social networks had been around then?  Would you have wanted to have been suspended from school activities?  The whole thing seems like a huge overreaction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0316256756.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0316256756.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091102/0316256756.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-free-speech-until-you-graduate?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091102/0316256756</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:50:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lawyers Discussing Business Models</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0251446630.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0251446630.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Doug Lichtman's latest "IP Colloquium" podcast is on the question of <a href="http://ipcolloquium.com/mobile/2009/10/online/" target="_blank">whether or not "content can survive online."</a>  Specifically, it's a discussion about "online content business models."  Oddly, though, rather than having business model experts, it's a conversation with four lawyers, starting with Doug, and including Brad Smith, General Counsel, Microsoft; Scott Martin, Executive Vice President, Intellectual Property, Paramount Pictures; and Dan Cooper, Vice President, Legal &#038; Business Affairs, MySpace.  Lichtman starts it off, oddly, by stating -- as if fact -- that talking about business models online is depressing because there's just not much in the way of business models online for content.  I think that's damning things a bit early in the process -- something that comes up again later.
<br /><br />
While I realize that the podcast is a legal podcast, it still strikes me as odd to bring together four lawyers to have them discuss business models, when their expertise is not in business at all, but in the law.
<br /><br />
The podcast starts out with a discussion on the Google Book search and settlement, but oddly no one even seems to give any credit to the fair use question.  But, again, since these are lawyers we're talking about, there really <i>isn't</i> much of a discussion on <i>business models</i> around Google Book Search, but on legal questions -- including a hope that Congress steps in to solve it.  Amusingly, Microsoft's Smith early on suggests that it's a question Congress could solve "if the industry got behind it; if copyright holders got behind it."  Striking, huh?  He basically admits how copyright law works in this country.  It's not about what's best for the overall society or economy.  It's not about the politicians fixing things where they see a problem.  It's not about <i>consumers</i>.  It'll happen if <b>the industry</b> gets behind it.  Welcome to the way things work in DC.  The rest of this part of the discussion is interesting -- and it's one (rare) case where I mostly agree with Lichtman, that as a resource, Google's Book search is incredibly useful, and we should figure out <i>some way</i> for it to happen.
<br /><br />
From there, the discussion moves on to other business models, and quickly seems to head off in directions that I don't think are accurate from a business model standpoint.  It starts off with two premises set forth by Lichtman, each of which I think is suspect.  First, he claims that piracy is a problem because "you can't compete with free."  Frankly, I'm sick of this argument because it makes no sense economically or from a business standpoint.  Economically, saying that you "can't compete with free" is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070215/002923.shtml">the same thing as saying you can't compete -- period</a>.  It assumes, falsely, that the only way to compete is on price, but the history of the economy shows that's not true.  You compete on price or you compete on benefits, and competing on price is often a losing battle anyway.  Saying "you can't compete with free" just means you only know how to compete on price.  If that's the case, you shouldn't be in business.
<br /><br />
And, to make that point clear, tons of companies compete on benefits, and allow other companies to offer lower priced offerings.  The popular example, of course, is "water," whereby it's free (or near free) to drink out of the tap, but the bottled water business is a multi-billion dollar business.  Why?  It tries to compete on other factors -- such as convenience, quality or safety (though, there are arguments that many of these benefits are perceived rather than real).  But it's true in just about any other business as well.  In the automobile business, a BMW costs more than an entry level Ford, and that's because BMW is seen to have a lot more scarce value.  Ford could "copy" BMW, but BMW has its reputation and some amount of prestige that Ford simply can't copy.
<br /><br />
Anyone who's in business recognizes that you don't just compete on price.  So why is it that so many seem to assume that the only way to compete in the content market is on price?
<br /><br />
Lichtman's second premise is that online business models don't work.  He says that Hulu hasn't been a success because it doesn't make as much as TV, and that if Hulu displaces TV we "won't have the money to pay for" expensive TV show production.  He claims that even if Hulu is really successful, it'll never make enough money to pay for the production of a show like <i>Battlestar Galactica</i>.  First off, huh?  How does he know that?  If Hulu is successful, it absolutely could pay for such production.  Already, we're seeing that some of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1603045385.shtml">online ad rates are higher</a> than TV ad rates.  Hulu's barely been around for two years at this point.  I'd be willing to bet that Hulu's revenue today greatly exceeds the revenue of television two years after it was invented.  Give it time, Doug!
<br /><br />
He then jumps on Redbox -- sarcastically saying "we're renting movies at a <i>dollar per day</i>?"  Suggesting that this will never sustain the development of movies.  Really?  I always find it amusing when people insist that problems in the DVD market will mean the death of Hollywood.  It really was just 25 years ago that Hollywood insisted that the VCR would kill the industry (Boston Strangler, anyone?).  Now they finally get their "original" wish, and find that putting movies on recordable media is going away, and it's the worst thing in the world?
<br /><br />
Either way, the economic fallacy that Doug seems to be relying on here is twofold.  First, he assumes that early business model experiments are set in place and no further innovation will occur that allows them to flourish.  He assumes that the markets won't grow, and some of these experiments won't click and get much bigger.  Second, he seems to assume that the old revenue numbers for these industries need to be sustained.  He doesn't consider that the old revenue numbers may have been a result of monopoly rents, limited competition or technological limits.  Markets change all the time, and usually what comes out in the end is much better (subjective, I know, but I'm a believer that the world is a better place today than it was 25 years ago -- and that it will be even better 25 years from now).
<br /><br />
But, of course, no one challenges him on this.  Scott Martin at Paramount, of course, worries quite a bit about piracy of movies.  While he admits (finally!) that he's just the lawyer, rather than the business guy, he discusses it in the terms of <i>adding more windows</i> to movie releases, rather than any discussion of adding more value to the product, or giving people reasons to buy beyond just the content.  Then Martin repeats the myth that you can't compete with free, but leads in with a different myth -- claiming that the "copyleft" people say that piracy would go away if they just priced their movies better.  That's a strawman argument.  Perhaps someone out there made that argument, but it's hardly common.  Then he says that "the idea that if we charged $2 a download instead of $10 a download, we'd get rid of piracy is a myth."  Sure, it's a myth, but no one said that.  You can't get rid of piracy.  No one thinks you can get rid of piracy.  No one suggested anything you do would "get rid of piracy."  What many of us are suggesting is that you can build business models where that piracy isn't a problem.  Even the people suggesting you just charge $2 instead of $10 aren't saying it would "get rid of piracy," but that at $2, enough people would pay for it that it would increase profits beyond what the $10 DRM'd version gets you.
<br /><br />
Anyway, the discussion goes on from there, including a discussion of the DMCA that again doesn't make much sense to me, but the business/economic analysis throughout doesn't strike me as accurate at all.  It's still an interesting discussion, but frustrating because I wish there were at least someone on the panel who would challenge a lot of the "accepted wisdom," put forth by everyone, that doesn't seem to be accurate.  Brad Smith, at one point, does point out that this is all a "revenue" problem, and does a pretty good job describing the revenue problem... but then falls into the trap of saying the law needs to "fix the piracy problem" because without that, business models can't be built up.
<br /><br />
The last analysis I'll talk about that is again faulty from an economics standpoint again comes from Scott Martin at Paramount, where he tries to defend the importance of DRM, noting that if he flies into JFK he has various price options on transportation: he can buy a car, rent a car, take a cab or take a train.  So there are price differentials.  He says that without DRM, content is like saying his only option is to buy a car.  That is, if he had DRM, they could offer different "rental options" for content, with "one day pricing or one week pricing."  But that's totally wrong again.  There's a reason for the differential pricing in the transportation options: it's related to the marginal cost of each option and the competitiveness of the market.  That's what sets the prices.  But with content, the marginal costs are zero, so what he's doing is trying to set up an <i>artificial</i> barrier to pretend the markets are the same.
<br /><br />
While I like listening to these discussions, I just find the economic fallacies frustrating.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0251446630.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0251446630.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/0251446630.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>dancing-about-architecture</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091022/0251446630</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:15:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Post Script On Edwyn Collins: Power Of The Press Gets His Music On MySpace For Free</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/2320306539.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/2320306539.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks back, we were one of the first publications to highlight how singer Edwyn Collins was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0146316418.shtml">unable</a> to put his own hit song on MySpace for free download (as he wanted to do) because Warner Music claimed copyright over it -- even though it had no such copyright.  Despite quite an effort by Collins' manager/wife,  Grace Maxwell, nothing was changing.  However, the story started to spread, including making it into some major media properties, such as the BBC and The Guardian... and whaddaya know, suddenly everything gets fixed.  <a href="http://mesanna.com">Mesanna</a> writes in to let us know of an <a href="http://www.edwyncollins.com/profiles/blogs/posted-originally-to-edwyns" target="_blank">update post from Maxwell</a>, where she points out that the power of the press seemed to finally accomplish what simple reasoning with both MySpace and Warner Music could not:
<blockquote><i>
However, whaddaya know? After 30 odd fruitless emails, A Girl Like You is now available in full on the myspace player! So, todays lesson is simple:<br /><br />
THE MOST POWERFUL DEPARTMENT IN ANY ORGANISATION IS THE PRESS OFFICE.<br />
The whole sad world runs scared of bad publicity, especially from a righteous source like Edwyn Collins.
</i></blockquote>
While Maxwell says it's not worth the ridiculous effort it would take to sue Warner Music or any other major label claiming copyright over Collins' songs, she's more than willing to help out in other cases against them:
<blockquote><i>
Warner Music Group has no connection with Edwyn whatsoever and yet they are still corporately arrogant enough to steal Edwyn's copyright and God knows what else from others. A guy from myspace advised me to treat their copyright department with kid gloves if I wanted a result. It didn't work. If the shoe was on the other foot they'd have been down on us like a ton of bricks. The next time a major tries to take ANYONE to court for copyright infringment, I'm volunteering my services as a witness for the defense.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/2320306539.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/2320306539.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/2320306539.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-thanks-to-warner-music</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091014/2320306539</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Oct 2009 21:22:01 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Creative Web Destruction: Sites Go Away</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0034226414.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0034226414.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As we await the official <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090423/1201564621.shtml">shutdown of Geocities</a> at the end of the month, Ivor Tossell is reminding everyone that <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/on-the-web-forever-brhas-a-due-date/article1310077/" target="_new">today's internet hotspot -- Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. -- may be completely gone</a> in a decade's time.  And, while it's good that sites come and go as the next big thing comes along, it does raise questions for those who are relying on these sites as some sort of archive of a life lived online.  It's a good reminder of the importance of either being able to back up certain information -- or control it directly yourself.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0034226414.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0034226414.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091005/0034226414.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>remember-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091005/0034226414</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>