Live Nation Working To Turn Website Into More Of A Platform

Thu, Jul 2nd 2009 3:59pm

Filed Under:
bloggers, india, libel, platform, safe harbors, user

Companies:
google

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is It So Difficult To Understand The Difference Between A Platform And A User?

from the head-scratcher dept

In the US, thanks to safe harbor rules in the DMCA and the CDA, courts will often toss out misdirected lawsuits that go after a service provider for the actions of a user. To be honest, I've always questioned why we need such safe harbors in the first place, since it should just be basic common sense that a service provider shouldn't be liable for the actions of a user. But, of course, common sense just isn't that common. This can be seen, first, in all the lawsuits that require incantations of the safe harbors to get them tossed out, but even worse, in foreign countries that have no such safe harbor laws. Take for example, a case in India, where Google India is being blamed for content written by bloggers on Blogger. First, Blogger is run by Google, not Google India, so the lawsuit is doubly misdirected -- but, more importantly, Google itself cannot be responsible for what someone writes using its tool. That's like suggesting that Bic is responsible for what you write with its pens. The case involves a guy who was upset about what some bloggers wrote about him -- so of course, he had to sue Google. What's amazing is that the judge seems to have initially bought this as reasonable. It barred Google from hosting any blog that "defamed" this guy. Google has responded by trying to explain the basics of the internet to the judge and how it's impossible for Google to figure out if someone is defaming someone else using its software.

Legal Issues

Thu, Jul 2nd 2009 1:04am

Filed Under:
advertisements, platform, service provider, trademark, user

Companies:
craigslist, google

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Forget Suing Google, Now It's Craigslist That's A Target For Misplaced Lawsuit

from the no-surprise-really dept

It's been quite common for companies to sue Google when a competitor puts up an ad that references their own trademarks. This is misguided in any number of ways: first, as long as the ad itself is not confusing such that the reader (or a moron in a hurry reader) would think that the ad is from the original company rather than the competitor, there's not likely to be a trademark violation. More importantly, even if there is a trademark violation, it should not be Google's liability, since they're simply the service provider. The liability (if there is any) would be on whoever created the ad. Mostly, the courts have gotten this right -- though, sometimes they've gotten confused. Either way, those lawsuits keep getting filed.

And now, it appears, they're spreading. Dave Barnes alerts us to the news that a similar lawsuit has been filed against Craigslist. The lawsuit was originally filed in a Texas state court, but has been transferred to a federal court -- but not before the state court banned Craigslist from posting any more ads with those trademarked words. Considering that Craigslist does not pre-screen posts to its site, it's not at all clear how that's even possible. And, considering that trademarks only cover use in commerce in a specific context, it would be way too onerous to insist that Craigslist could not allow the phrases "Call First," "First Call Properties," or "Call Us First," in any context whatsoever.

Hopefully, the federal court is quick to dismiss Craigslist from the suit. Unfortunately, since trademark claims don't have a section 230 or DMCA safe harbor, it may be a little more involved than some other cases. But common sense, once again, dictates that Craigslist should not be the liable party here and should not be responsible for policing the text of posts. To make the claim even more ridiculous, since Craigslist doesn't charge for the ads in question, it's difficult to see how Craigslist could be found to have been using these words "in commerce." The lawsuit also alleges libel against Craigslist -- which should get thrown out quite quickly under section 230. It's too bad that the trademark claim might be a bit more involved.

(Mis)Uses of Technology

Fri, Mar 27th 2009 4:44pm

Filed Under:
3rd party apps, intellectual property, platform

Companies:
cbs, last.fm, redbox

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Two Companies That Should Know Better Shut Down Helpful 3rd Party Apps

from the bad-news dept

Having just pointed out how multiple train operators are using intellectual property laws to shut down helpful third party apps, we're seeing a number of stories about other companies doing something similar. First up is Last.fm, which has apparently started blocked a bunch of third party apps that had been using undocumented calls to stream content from Last.fm. Last.fm (now owned by CBS) was in a bit of a quandary, because its licenses with the major record labels (there they go again, blocking innovation) forbid streaming except in specific circumstances -- so these third party apps "broke" the agreement. But... that's not quite true, because the agreements are between Last.fm and the labels, not the third parties. Last.fm has now specific requirement to block others from creating apps. So, yes, Last.fm has every right to do this, and I'm sure the labels were demanding it do this, but it still doesn't make it a very smart move. Those third party apps were making Last.fm more valuable. Blocking them hurts the overall value and pushes people to go in search of other services that are more consumer friendly.

This move also comes right after Last.fm's recent decision to charge for streaming outside of the US, Germany or the UK. This also has folks up in arms -- and is driving away users in droves to other solutions. Last.fm has plenty of competitors out there, and working hard to make its own service less usable and less reasonable isn't going to help keep users around.

Meanwhile, a bunch of folks have sent in the story of how DVD rental kiosk operator Redbox has pressured a third party to takedown its Redbox iPhone app. The app was apparently pretty cool, making use of the phone's GPS to tell you where the nearest kiosk is, and letting you reserve the movie you want. There is some speculation that Redbox is upset that the app also pulls a list of promotional codes, allowing some people to rent movies for free -- but that's a misguided concern. If that's the real issue, then they should just change how their promotional codes work because (of course) the codes are still available for anyone to search and use online. Shutting down the iPhone app doesn't fix that at all.

Still, it seems that both companies should know better. Having third parties build apps that make your services more useful is a sign of success, and should be encouraged, not threatened and shut down. We live in an age where too many people focus on using intellectual property as a club to block any use -- even when those uses are helpful in making your core product even more valuable.

(Mis)Uses of Technology

Wed, Mar 11th 2009 5:15am

Filed Under:
api, news, newspapers, platform

Companies:
ny times, the guardian

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Guardian Follows The NY Times In Making News A Platform

from the good-job dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the wonderful news that the Guardian, in the UK, has opened up an API and is sharing data in such a way that others can build programs on top of the news. This is fantastic -- and follows on a similar move last month by the NY Times. It appears that both the NY Times and the Guardian really are pushing the boundaries of recognizing that being an online newspaper these days needs to be about a lot more than delivering the news.

Perhaps even more interesting (though, getting much less attention) is the companion bit of news from some editors at the Guardian -- who are pointing out that they hope and pray each day that the NY Times gives into temptation and starts trying to charge for news... because it will create a huge opening for the Guardian to create a much larger online audience. This is what plenty of people have been pointing out for years: if clueless newspaper execs decide to start charging for news, it just opens the door wide for smarter news organizations to stay free and accumulate a much larger audience.

Web Services

Thu, Feb 5th 2009 9:02pm

Filed Under:
api, news, platform

Companies:
ny times

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NY Times Turning News Into A Platform

from the smart dept

For years, we've been big fans of the concept of having newspapers start becoming platforms, rather than monolithic "news delivering" services. Over the past year or so, a group of digitally savvy folks at the NY Times have shown one way that can work. Their latest move? To turn the NY Times news articles into a true platform. They've released an API for news, allowing others to actually build useful tools on top of the NY Times' news articles. Contrast that to, say, GateHouse Media, which recently sued the NY Times for trying to build useful tools on top of GateHouse's content.

Of course, just because there are some folks on the digital side who "get it" at the NY Times, it doesn't mean management has quite figured things out yet. At the same time as releasing this API, the paper's Executive Editor, Bill Keller is talking about trying to lock up their content and charge people for it, again. Yes, the newspaper needs new and innovative business models, but by now it should know that trying to charge for such content simply isn't a sustainable model. There's too much competition out there (which the NY Times discovered already when it tried and failed to charge for content a few years back). There are things that the paper can charge for -- but basic online content isn't one that will be successful.

Predictions

Tue, Mar 4th 2008 12:36pm

Filed Under:
business models, platform, social networks, strategy

Companies:
facebook