When Jammie Thomas (now Thomas-Rasset) became the first alleged P2P file-swapper to take her case all the way to trial and verdict, no one suspected that she would actually have three trials and verdicts, but that's the case today, as the RIAA rejected a federal judge's decision to slash Thomas-Rasset's damage award. Instead, we're headed to a truncated third trial on the issue of damages.

The recording industry also made it clear this week that both Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum (the second P2P defendant to go to trial and verdict) are, in its view, quite terrible people: lying, deceiving, irresponsible, and unreasonable. And the industry can't understand why they're both fighting on.

Linking words together online is an hobby. Creating context from those words is an art. Making them work in harmony is a gift. The team at Thomson Reuters have done this for some time with their Calais project and the first consumer product from it OpenCalais.

OpenCalais is a monster database filled with linked data that can be accessed by anyone via a special API. Currently it works on an individual application level and as plugins with other popular CMS and blogging platforms. In tandem they create a more powerful experience for the publishers of new content by allowing the integration of linked data for linking, tagging and finding optional third-party resources for inspiration.

Word on the street and from a trusted source is that the Calais team has something new on the horizon their own CMS. A release of a CMS that has semantic technologies built right into is a powerful addition to the marketplace. Many blogging platforms and CMS products available today have stagnated under the weight of their own popularity.

It is hard to innovate when you are leading the pack or trying to figure out how to make money from your product that is free. Time and resources become devoted to maintaining the status quo, patching holes and community relations and support. Not to mention that many of these tools have crept out from the minds of developers and not publishers.

The same can't be said for Thomson Reuters Calais Initiative. With a business model built in from the inception of the project they have the ability to create value from the wealth of content that is entering their system. It is treated to some natural language processing, machine learning and prepared to link with other content. As the initiative currently exists it is the side car to better publishing as there is no status quo or hole patching. They realized this.

Throwing a CMS on top of this type of foundation is a logical move for OpenCalais to extend development and create publisher relations. There has been so little innovation in core CMS offerings that most rely on third-party developers to create additional functionality or implement API's like OpenCalais, Zemanta and other discovery products.

An OpenCalais CMS, blogging platform or whatever comes from this group is going to be a welcome addition to the choices that publishers have available today. The closest opportunity today to creating a true semantic experience in a publishing platform that is readily available would be to install the Zemanta plugin in WordPress. It transforms the writing experience. An offering from Calais could transform the writing and CMS experience.

Update: Krista Thomas (@kristathomas) from OpenCalais got in touch to say that there is a fully integrated CMS based on Drupal called OpenPublish available now.

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL CONNECTION: http://cmp.ly/0

CMS Innovations from Thomson Reuters? is a post from: TechStartups.com

Shared by Marinho Brando
no que eu concorde com os comentrios (no os li, no posso julgar)... mas apenas dois cents:

"quem" Sarah Lacy? aspirante a Thomas Jefferson? suplente do Obama? seguidora de Paris Hilton? ou s mais uma jornalista p-de-chinelo de um site que vive de blefes?

e a segunda coisa : NINGUM tem o direito de pichar a bandeira de uma nao, colocar fogo, rasgar ou fazer seja l o que for. A bandeira de uma nao no a bandeira do PT nem do Talib. At onde eu sei, a lei pode perfeitamente dar cadeia pra ela se ela pisar por aqui no futuro. Quer reclamar da burocracia? Entra na fila! Mas eu estou rindo at hoje da pisada dela e acho que vou continuar rindo...

No ltimo dia 3, o TechCrunch publicou um artigo de Sarah Lacy no qual a jornalista basicamente mete o pau no governo brasileiro por supostos problemas tcnicos e burocrticos que a impediram de vir ao nosso pas na data em que planejara. O mais relevante, porm, no foi a chiadeira dela, mas a reao de grande parte dos leitores.

Alm de escrever para o TechCrunch, Sarah trabalha para o site da Business Week e o Yahoo! Finance. Abaixo, segue um resumo do contedo de seu texto:

• Sarah decidiu vir ao Brasil para conhecer startups e empreendedores, pois prepara um livro sobre empreendedorismo em mercados emergentes.
• O Brasil era o lugar que ningum no Vale do Silcio insistiu para que ela visitasse, e seu marido at lhe pediu que no viesse, pois ouvira muitas notcias de sequestros e violncia.
• Mas ela estava convencida de que havia um mundo de empresas e histria empolgantes por aqui. Assim, durante cerca de quatro meses estudou portugus e planejou a viagem.
• Seu visto deveria ter chegado no dia 28 de agosto, mas isso no ocorreu com isso, ela perdeu tempo e dinheiro, sendo obrigada a reorganizar seu calendrio.
• Garantiram a ela que o visto chegaria at dia 2 de setembro, mas a nova data tambm no foi cumprida com isso, Sarah perdeu mais tempo e dinheiro.
• Ela trocou a passagem ao Brasil por uma China.
• Aparentemente, o governo brasileiro decidiu mudar para um novo sistema de computadores em seus consulados, e esse processo tem causado severos atrasos Sarah foi vtima disso.
• Ela conclui dizendo o seguinte:

Voc quer investimento externo e ateno, Brasil? Eis uma ideia: DEIXEM AS PESSOAS ENTRAR NO MALDITO PAS. Voc quer mostrar seu valor de TI? Que tal equipar seus consulados com sistemas de computadores que funcionam? Ou talvez implantar [a mudana] lentamente, para que outros postos possam cuidar da demanda. Ou treinar pessoas primeiro.
O pas deveria se sentir embaraado, e suas empresas deveriam estar furiosas. Vou planejar tentar todo esse negcio de Brasil novamente em dezembro ou janeiro. No por culpa dos empreendedores ou dos nossos leitores que isso aconteceu, e ainda acredito que h timas histrias no Brasil que eu vou querer contar. Mas ser um pas mais difcil de entrar do que a China no um bom indcio para o investimento externo, Brasil.

O texto de Sarah gerou muita polmica, com cerca de 500 comentrios no TechCrunch e repercusso em outros sites, alm de um interessante artigo de Paul Carr (que j ultrapassou os 450 comentrios) no mesmo blog.

Carr diz que, se tivesse uma startup, estaria puto, pois teria perdido uma oportunidade mostrar seu negcio para algum de fora do pas.

Ele nota que a maioria dos leitores que comentaram ataca Sarah e a poltica norte-americana de vistos. Alguns deles usaram palavras como reciprocidade' e troco', e muitos sugeriram furiosamente que ela deveria ter comeado a solicitar o visto mais cedo. Houve ainda reclamaes montagem da bandeira brasileira e afirmao do marido sobre a violncia no Brasil.

Confuso diante de tanta agressividade, Carr releu o texto de Sarah para ver se no deixara passar algum trecho batido um pedido para que o Brasil seja bombardeado de volta idade da pedra ou uma insinuao de que as mulheres do pas no so limpas, por exemplo. Mas no, ela realmente havia apenas reclamado que uma atualizao de computadores causou inconvenincias a ela e outros viajantes que j tinham seus vistos aprovados, mas que no o receberam no dia prometido.

Uma reclamao completamente vlida. Mas que gerou centenas de comentrios raivosos.

Assim, h basicamente dois grandes problemas nos comentrios sobre o post de Sarah: grande parte deles (1) foge do assunto principal a suposta falha tcnica e burocrtica do governo brasileiro e (2) demonstra excessiva agressividade.

Planejamento, bandeira, violncia, reciprocidade. A maior parte dos comentaristas concentrou-se nesses pontos e fugiu do mais importante no texto de Sarah.

Sim, ela poderia ter solicitado o visto mais cedo, usado outra imagem para ilustrar o post e, sei l, casado com um homem que no liga para a falta de segurana em outros pases. Os Estados Unidos poderiam ter um processo menos caro, desgastante e irritante para os brasileiros conseguirem o visto.

Que seja.

Nada disso muda o fato de que Sarah no recebeu seu visto na data prometida. Duas vezes. Nada disso muda o fato de que as startups brasileiras perderam uma boa oportunidade de divulgar seus negcios para a mdia do exterior. Culpa, segundo a jornalista, do governo brasileiro.

Esse o cerne da questo, ignorado na maioria dos comentrios.

No digo que Sarah no merece crticas. Muito pelo contrrio. Como nota o Valleywag, ela aparentemente no solicitou o visto a tempo, pois teve que recorrer a um tipo de servio de despachante e foi a dona desse servio que a informou sobre os problemas consulares. No duvido que o Brasil realmente tenha atrasado a entrega do visto de muita gente, mas existe tambm a possibilidade de a empresa ter cometido falhas e jogado a culpa para o governo brasileiro, e Sarah no levou isso em conta.

Enquanto isso, Jenna Wortham, do New York Times, conseguiu entrar aqui sem problemas, o que levou Peter Kafka, do All Things Digital, a dizer no Twitter que ela deveria dar dicas de visto a Sarah.

Para piorar, o artigo de Sarah exala certa arrogncia. Esta definitivamente a pior coisa que j ocorreu ao Brasil, Sarah Lacy no ser autorizada a visit-lo... Epic-est fail', de fato, ironizou o Valleywag.

Tanto Sarah quanto os seus leitores tm direito a criticar. Mas preciso uma ateno especial quando muitos dos que comentam fogem do assunto principal (o atraso na entrega do visto) e, pior, atacam o autor do texto com argumentos rasos (ou nenhum), ofensas absurdas e alto nvel de agressividade incluindo at ameaas. Por que tudo isso ocorreu? Como as coisas chegaram a esse ponto?

Paul Carr d a dica.

Ele diz que foi contratado pelo TechCrunch para ser o controverso, para dizer coisas inflamatrias e incitar debates furiosos entre idiotas. Como seus textos provocaram muito menos comentrios do que o de Sarah, Carr diz que passar a usar ttulos como estes abaixo, deliberadamente provocativos:

O Estado de Israel passou dados RIAA?
Aquisio do Last.fm pela CBS: o mais inteligente acordo norte-americano com um alemo desde Wernher von Braun?
Educao dos EUA no produziu um aluno decente desde o atentado de Oklahoma: ento por que to difcil para terroristas estrangeiros conseguir vistos H1B?
Os fanboys do Brasil: por que os usurios latino-americanos de Mac so ainda mais insuportavelmente presunosos do que aqueles no resto do mundo
Os franceses so preguiosos, os americanos so preguiosos, os britnicos tm dentes ruins, os palestinos so todos terroristas, e os suos ficaram ricos com ouro nazista e tudo culpa da AT&T
V se foder, Blgica

Brilhante.

O erro de Sarah foi falar mal de um pas. No caso, o Brasil.

Erro entre aspas porque o grande problema daquele post no o texto dela, mas os comentrios, que demonstram um nacionalismo exacerbado em manifestaes insanas e sem razo, no raras vezes aproximando-se da xenofobia e do racismo.

A questo aqui no o nacionalismo em si, mas alguns atos que derivam (em parte) dele. Essas reaes extremadas parecem ser infelizmente cada vez mais comuns, principalmente com o relativo anonimato proporcionado pela internet.

Crticas em geral podem atingir as pessoas de diferentes maneiras, provocando reaes variadas. Quando elas envolvem um sentimento de identificao como o nacionalismo , as reaes frequentemente so mais colricas e menos racionais.

Repito: no um problema (apenas) do nacionalismo. No prprio post de Sarah os comentrios ofensivos no so apenas de brasileiros. Muita gente de outros pases tambm meteu o pau nos Estados Unidos. Por qu? Provavelmente rolou uma identificao com os brasileiros em maior ou menor escala, o antiamericanismo um sentimento muito difundido pelo mundo.

Outro exemplo: futebol. Mesmo entre amigos, quando critico outros times, preciso tomar cuidado. Se no, acontece isto:

Voc viu o Juvenal Juvncio? O cara um...
Ah, t falando o qu? Vocs tm o Andres Sanchez!
Sim, eu tambm no sou f do Andres, mas...
Deixa o meu time em paz!

Pois torcer por um clube envolve um sentimento de identificao. Ento no raro eu preciso criticar o meu prprio time ou fazer algum tipo de ressalva antes de falar sobre o time dos outros, para desarmar o meu interlocutor. Eu sei que no Corinthians assim e assado, no gosto disso e daquilo. Ponto. Mas agora quero falar do Palmeiras.

Mesmo quando o assunto tecnologia, vemos reaes exageradas de gente que de alguma maneira se identifica com Apple, Linux, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Canon, Nikon...

Esse sentimento de identificao seja com nao, clube, marca, filosofia, religio ou qualquer outra coisa comum, aceitvel e muitas vezes incontrolvel. Mas ele no pode justificar atos extremos e irracionais, que no raras vezes tm consequncias graves.

necessrio haver maior tolerncia a opinies alheias, especialmente quando elas tocam em assuntos que envolvem sentimentos. Obviamente, no h uma soluo evidente para isso se houvesse, o mundo seria um lugar bem mais pacfico , mas no por isso que vamos ignorar esses excessos, deixar de debat-los. Talvez no exista de fato uma soluo definitiva para a intolerncia, mas h como diminu-la e discutir o problema certamente faz parte desse processo.

A intolerncia generalizada pode ser consequncia de uma tolerncia excessiva. Para ficar no caso do TechCrunch, a internet um ambiente to tolerante que acaba dando espao a manifestaes de intolerncia. Nesse caso, o desafio estabelecer os limites da tolerncia ela no pode servir como subterfgio para atos de intolerncia.

Como voc vai nas suas resolues de Ano Novo?
No fiz nenhuma.
Note que, para algum se aperfeioar, ele precisa ter alguma ideia do que bom. Isso envolve certos valores.
Mas como todos sabemos, valores so relativos. Cada sistema de crenas igualmente vlido, e precisamos tolerar a diversidade. Virtude no melhor que vcio. apenas diferente.
No sei se consigo tolerar tanta tolerncia assim.
Eu me recuso a ser sacrificado segundo noes de comportamento virtuoso.

O Brasil supostamente falhou com Sarah, e ela tem todo o direito de reclamar disso, assim como ns temos liberdade para critic-la. Mas tudo isso deve ocorrer dentro de certos limites que, a meu ver, foram respeitados pela jornalista, mas ignorados por grande parte dos leitores que deixou comentrios no post.

Quando os limites so desrespeitados, a liberdade de expresso perde um pouco do seu sentido. A manuteno desse direito passa pelo controle dos limites da tolerncia.

20 all-new designs from 20 great artists!

It's Dunny Series 2009!

Dunny is back in 3-inch form and morphed into pop art masterpieces in ways you've never seen him morphed before.

Get ready for Dunny editions of Devilrobots' To-Fu Head Son and Mori Chack's Gloomy Bear, plus a new bunch of wild figures equipped with the accessories necessary to wreak havoc on your collection.

Keep an eye out for 2 chases that slipped into the line-up, plus Golden Tickets redeemable for an elusive 3-inch Dunny by the NYC-based artist Pon. Not available for sale anywhere!

Each Dunny sold with a collectible insert card starting September 10!

Artists in this series include Amanda Visell, Andrew Bell, Amy Ruppel, Brandt Peters, Dalek, Devilrobots, Gary Taxali, Mori Chack, Huck Gee, Jeremyville, Kozik, Kronk, Luke Chueh, Mad, Pon, Shane Jessup, Shawnimal, SupaKitch, Travis Cain, and Thomas Han.

The Toys

Jammie Thomas-Rasset

Much of Jammie Thomas-Rasset's legal arguments following this summer's $1.92 million Recording Industry Association of America file sharing jury verdict against her don't have much weight or precedent.

Clearly, that a jury in June ordered her to pay $80,000 for each of the 24 music tracks she infringed on Kazaa is outrageous and shocks the conscience and there's no rational relationship between the amount of harm suffered by the recording industry and the award granted.

Thomas-Rasset wass the nation's first sharing defendant to go before a jury. The RIAA has filed more than 30,000 lawsuits targeting individuals, and most have settled out of court.

That said, in their latest court papers, (.pdf) Thomas-Rasset's legal team again is sticking to the argument that the whopping jury award is a due process violation all in a bid perhaps to secure a third trial. (The first ended in a $222,000 judgment against the Minnesota woman, but a mistrial was declared after the judge conceded he gave faulty jury instructions)

Still, it is true that the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower courts have repeatedly reduced lofty jury awards based on so-called due process breached. But those were punitive damages awards, not statutory damages awards.

Those punitive damage reductions, including the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, do not apply to Thomas-Rasset's case although Thomas-Rasset's defense team suggests there's always a first.

Punitive damages are the amount a jury awards to punish conduct of an offender. Up until recently, there generally has been no limit. But the Supreme Court has suggested that punitive damages should be limited to about no more than 10 times the amount of actual damages a jury awards.

Higher ratios, the courts have said, are due process breaches because defendants have no notice ahead of time about the lofty financial consequences of their actions.

But the law is crystal clear when it comes to the Copyright Act, the law under which the RIAA sued Thomas-Rasset. Juries can award up to $150,000 per violation. Punitive damages do not fall under the Copyright Act.

One of the only points in Thomas-Rasset's brief that makes a compelling argument is that the Copyright Act, when amended in 1999, didn't conceive of non-commercial cases the RIAA has been bringing the past six years.

The notion that Congress decided that the award of statutory damages in this case was somehow appropriate or tailored to ensure deterrence is a fiction that the plaintiffs would have this court adopt. The Congress that enacted the statutory-damages provision of the Copyright Act could not have had the kinds of illegal but non-commercial music downloading here at issue in mind, defense attorney K.A.D. Camara argues in recent briefs.

It's true: There's no doubt that a $1.92 judgment over $24 worth of music provides the clearest example yet of the abuses made possible by the 1976 Copyright Act, which Congress modified in 1999, at the behest of Hollywood and the recording industry, to carry a maximum penalty for a single infringement of up to $150,000.

That statutory penalty was intended to bankrupt large-scale commercial pirating operations, like organized DVD and CD bootleggers not to put individuals like Thomas-Rasset in debt for the rest of their lives.

Still, the RIAA is crying foul.

After Thomas-Rasset refused to settle out of court, the industry is now demanding that Thomas-Rasset pay up. The RIAA is also seeking U.S. District Judge Michael Davis to issue an injunction barring her from future file sharing.

Plaintiffs' evidence showed that defendant knew what she was doing was wrong, that she did it anyway, and then lied about it for years. Through two trials, defendant still shows no remorse whatsoever for her actions and has made it clear that she has no intention of ever satisfying any portion of the judgment against her, Timothy Reynolds, the RIAA's attorney, wrote (.pdf) Davis.

Judge Davis of Minnesota could rule on the retrial and injunction issue any time.

See Also:

• Jury in RIAA Trial Slaps $2 Million Fine on Jammie Thomas
• Feds Support $1.92 Million RIAA File Sharing Verdict
• Will File-Sharing Case Spawn a Copyright Reform Movement?
• Thomas Seeks New RIAA Trial; Says $1.92 Million Verdict Monstrous
• File Sharing Lawsuits at a Crossroads, After 5 Years of RIAA
• Jury Dings File Sharer $675000, RIAA Prevails Update

When the Ninth Circuit decided Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008), we opined that the opinion wasn't "all that earth-shattering. It's crafted to be narrowly applicable to the particular case decided and should not alter the Section 230 analysis in most future cases." Now, more than a year later, about half a dozen federal courts have espoused the same view.

In Goodard v. Google, Inc., 2009 WL 2365866 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2009), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that Roommates "carved out only a narrow exception" to the rule set out in Carafano v. Metrosplash, 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), that a website consisting of user-generated content "could never be liable [under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act] because 'no [user] profile has any content until a user actively creates it,'" Roommates, 521 F.3d at 1171 (quoting Carafano, 339 F.3d at 1124) (emphasis added). The court also pointed out two recent district court opinions which reached similar conclusions:

• In Doe v. MySpace, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 1457170 (E.D. Tex. 2009), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas found that Roommates was "not applicable" to an action against social networking site MySpace.com because the decision was was only relevant to websites, unlike MySpace, which require their users to provide illicit content.

• In Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Project Playlist, Inc., 603 F.Supp.23d 690 (S.D.N.T. 2009), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the Roommates decision "was based solely on the fact that . . . Roommates.com . . ., in violation of federal and California state housing law, required potential subscribers to identify their sex, sexual orientation, and family status, and to indicate their preferred sex, sexual orientation, and family status in a roommate."

A couple of other district courts have issued opinions which take the same position: the Roommates decision is narrowly applicable to the facts of that particular case and does not alter the broad immunity afforded by Section 230 in the vast majority of cases. See Lee Baker, Another One Bites the Dust: Roommates as a Hail Mary for Frivolous Lawsuits, Citizen Media Law Project (Aug. 5, 2009); Thomas O'Toole, Five Post-Roommates.com Decisions Confine Immunity Exception to Narrow Circumstances, TechLaw (May 28, 2009).

For the Herb Lubalin fans out there, Justin Thomas Kay has just uploaded a slick collection of images from a recent visit to Lubalin's archive at the Cooper Union in NYC.

In addition to Justin's Flickr account, you can find photos from the Lubalin collection at 12oz Prophet + So Much Pileup.

-

Also worth checking: Photo Lettering: Alphabet Thesaurus Vol.2

Not signed up for the Grain Edit RSS Feed yet? Give it a try. Its free and yummy.

-

Share This

2009 Grain Edit

Filed under: Misc. Gadgets

Caption contest: Google Checkout finally finds a home originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:31:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Thomas Ricker / Engadget:
Samsung's Pixon 12: a dozen megapixels of cameraphone nonsense in June After failing to show at the Mobile World Congress event in February, Samsung's rumored 12 megapixel cameraphone has finally arrived. Meet the Pixon 12 and its 3.1-inch AMOLED touchscreen with a Sammy promise of fast shutter speeds and quick browsing.

Update: The Progress and Freedom Foundation is funded by the record labels, including EMI, Sony and a host of content providers.

A conservative think tank lashed out at U.S. District Judge Michael Davis on Monday, calling his mistrial decision (.pdf) in the Jammie Thomas music sharing lawsuit "unreasoned," "unreasonable" and "injudicious."

The new position paper (.pdf) from the Progress and Freedom Foundation says the judge's September ruling is riddled with "profound flaws" that "must be exposed before they mislead other jurists."

Davis' decision overturned a $222,000 Minnesota jury verdict against Thomas, setting the stage for a new trial.

The Washington-based PFF's staff and board are filled with former Reagan administration and other government officials. Monday's publication, "Thomas on the Making-Available Right: An Unreasoned and Unreasonable Decision," comes as the Recording Industry Association of America is demanding Judge Davis allow the record labels to appeal the decision to a higher court before a retrial commences. The trial is currently set for March.

Davis, a President Clinton appointee, tossed the jury's October 2007 verdict after concluding his jury instructions made it too easy for panelists to find Thomas liable for infringing 24 music tracks on the Kazaa file sharing program. Davis had instructed jurors Thomas was liable for infringement solely for having music in an open share folder on a peer-to-peer network, even without evidence that anyone had downloaded the music illegally.

It was an important decision, resting at the heart of what proof is required to ding a file sharer for copyright infringement, with fines totaling up to $150,000 per music track.

The RIAA has issued about 30,000 lawsuits. Most have settled out of court. Rulings on the so-called "making available" argument have been all over the map. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in a file sharing case.

Only one federal judge has sided with Davis. But the RIAA eventually won a $40,000 judgment from the judge, before trial, after the court said the defendant had tampered with evidence. But a Texas judge last month sided with the RIAA in a case against a teenager accused of "making available" music on a file sharing network.

In declaring a mistrial in the Thomas case, Davis wrote that "actual" distribution of music files was required. The RIAA countered that infringement was implied (.pdf), and that it was next to impossible to demonstrate somebody else downloaded files that Thomas publicly made available.

Still, the decision, even if ultimately accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not kill RIAA lawsuits. In every case, the RIAA downloads music files from the open share folder. Judge Davis said the 24 downloads allegedly made from Thomas' share folder could be used as evidence of infringement. (A looming issue, however, is that the RIAA's investigators are not licensed, which could become an evidentiary issue but so far has not.)

Thomas Sydnor II, a Progress and Freedom Foundation senior fellow, blasted Davis for failing to follow case law that found pedophiles were guilty of distributing child pornography for solely having kid smut in an open Kazaa share folder. Snydor wrote that Davis "found these on-point analyses of the ordinary meaning of 'distribute' irrelevant."

Sydnor, a former copyright adviser to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the Thomas decision misread or disobeyed precedents, federal treaties, scholarly reviews and the three branches of government.

In his mistrial decision, Davis concluded the RIAA's position "is simply not reasonable."

Sydnor seized on that language.

"And with that, Thomas collapsed its rickety tower of clashing results, unreasoned decisions, and distinguished precedents," Snydor wrote. "This extreme claim was itself unreasonable, and it triggered cascading absurdities."

Illustration: Modernhumorist

See Also:

• Thomas Demands Retrial in RIAA $222000 Verdict
• RIAA Decries Attorney-Blogger as 'Vexatious' Litigator
• Beckerman: RIAA's 'Vexatious' Charge Reeks With 'Falsehood and ...
• Retrial Date Set in RIAA v. Thomas
• RIAA Decries Texas Woman as 'Vexatious' for Demanding File Sharing ...
• Judge Declares Mistrial in RIAA-Jammie Thomas Trial
• MPAA Waffling on Piracy Costs; RIAA Says Illicit CDs Worth $13.74 Each
• File Sharer Settles with RIAA for a Whopping $756 a Song

While retailers don't anticipate a widely profitable Black Friday, they're already rounding up the lawyers to threaten websites who publish pre-released sale prices for the day after Thanksgiving shopping stampede.

Consider Wal-Mart, which has already begun sending takedown noticesdemanding the online removal of their Black Friday ads. Wal-Mart and a host of other retailing concerns perform this act every year ahead of Black Friday.

Last year, Wal-Mart went even bigger, sending out letters warning websites not even to think about posting Black Friday advertisements ahead of schedule.

Wal-Mart is alleging copyright infringement and trade secret violations which aren't likely to stand up in court if they even get there. Wal-Mart is also demanding targeted websites to disclose "how you came into possession of the information."

Expect an onslaught of similar notices with less than two weeks until Turkey Day.

Hot nod: Techdirt.

Photo: djlicious

See Also:

• 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web
• YouTube to McCain: You Made Your DMCA Bed, Lie in It
• Guns N' Roses Uploader to Plead Guilty
• Retrial Date Set in RIAA v. Thomas
• Net Neutrality Advocates In Charge Of Obama Team Review of FCC
• Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer ...

Copyrights

* In the Harry Potter fair use case, the court declared that the Lexicon encyclopedia isn't fair use.

* The judge declared a mistrial in the Jammie Thomas case.

* Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins has reached its denouement. Previous blog coverage of the case (1, 2). In the prior ruling, the judge denied the plaintiff damages for the copyright infringement. In the final ruling, the court enjoins cutting and pasting product shots but allows the defendant to recreate the product shots. Ronald Coleman has more here and here (noting that the court says that, per MercExchange, an injunction does not automatically follow from a finding of copyright infringement).

* Wired's 5 year retrospective on the RIAA's litigation campaign against file sharing.

Social Networking Sites, Blogs and Online Publishing

* J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School Dist., 2008 WL 4279517 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2008). Upholding student discipline for creating a fake MySpace page of principal. The school initially based the discipline on the student infringing copyright (by cutting and pasting the principal's photo) but this aspect of the case wasn't mentioned at all in the court's reasoning.

* O.Z. v. Board of Trustees of Long Beach Unified School Dist., 2008 WL 4396895 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2008). Two seventh graders make a video about killing their teacher, described as:

The slide show is essentially a dramatization of the murder of Mrs. Rosenlof. The first slide photo states, "Mrs. Rosenlof dies." Throughout the slide show there are photos of Plaintiff dressed up in a costume, depicting a woman meant to resemble Mrs. Rosenlof. There is red text on each slide photo that describes the scene. One slide says, "Jelly Donut's knife: haha fat bastard. here i come!" In this same photo, the viewer can see a butcher knife lunging at Mrs. Rosenlof's character from the camera's point of view. The butcher knife is then laid on the fallen victim while the text reads, "hehehe. i'm a shank yoooooooooo!" At the end of the slide show, it reads, "your [sic] dead, BITCH! :D".

I think they thought it was funny, but no one else did. One of them posted the video to YouTube. It's unclear what happens to the poster, but the co-content creator was suspended and forced to transfer to another school for her eighth grade. In this case, her TRO request is denied, even if she didn't intend the video to be publicly distributed and even if the video was not a "true threat."

* Spanierman v. Hughes, 2008 WL 4224483 (D. Conn. Sept 16, 2008). Teacher who was fired for inappropriate MySpace communications with students can't sue the school.

* An encouraging update on the Lori Drew prosecution.

* Bill McGeveran on Facebook Beacon and legal liability.

* Good NYT article on the sociology of Facebook and Twitter.

* Sam Bayard on an interesting but confusing ruling from Montana on its shield law applied to anonymous online posters.

* Verdana Partners v. Giles. Online newspaper wins anti-SLAPP claim.

* Jardin v. Datallegro, Inc., 2008 WL 4104473 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). A litigant's taking down a blog post and its comments is not destruction of evidence.

* Nemet Chevrolet has appealed its 230 loss. Previous blog coverage.

* Do Facebook's anti-spam policies overregulate Facebook's power users?

Nikon has announced their new D90 camera, a 12.3-megapixel DSLR that retails for $999.95 and includes the ability to shoot 24fps 720p HD video.

Commercial photographer Chase Jarvis had a chance to try out the camera in advance, making a video as he and his crew tested out several D90's.

In related news, Canon announced their new 50D DSLR.

Check out the D90 write-ups by Thomas Hawk and David Pouge (New York Times).

This is a blog post from Laughing Squid For more content like this, subscribe to the RSS feed, Twitter & FriendFeed.

New Nikon D90 Camera, Includes Ability To Shoot 720p HD Video

NowPublic announces Silicon Valley "MostPublic Index"
Identifies the Web's 50 most influential people in Silicon Valley

NowPublic, the world's largest participatory news network, today announced its second MostPublic Index, identifying the 50 most influential individuals in Silicon Valley/San Francisco.

The MostPublic Index is a detailed (and transparent) barometer of whose voices are most heard in the digital landscape as new channelsTwitter, Facebook, Flick, YouTube and the liketransform how media is created and spread. Last week, NowPublic identified and announced the 50 MostPublic influencers in New York.

NowPublic's formula gauges influence and publicness across four categories:

• Online Visibility
• Presence on User-Generated Content and Social Networking Sites
• Interactivity and Accessibility
• The R Factor: Presence on Microblogging Platforms (Flickr, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.)

NowPublic examined statistics in each of these categories from Alexa, Compete, Facebook, Flickr, Google, Quantcast, Technorati, YouTube and various other blogs and sites, to create a list of Silicon Valley's leading influencers. It then narrowed the list to 50 by analyzing and documenting individuals' presence and popularity in each of these channels, applying a weighted scoring system, determined by the strength of specific traits held in each online community. A detailed account of the scoring system can be viewed here.

Here is NowPublic's list of the MostPublic individuals in Silicon Valley/San Francisco:

1. Robert Scoble
2. Michael Arrington
3. Jack Dorsey
4. Biz Stone
5. Matt Cutts
6. Pete Cashmore
7. Dave Winer
8. Guy Kawasaki
9. Loc Le Meur
10. Kevin Rose
11. Merlin Mann
12. Stowe Boyd
13. Jeff Atwood
14. Jeremiah Owyang
15. Veronica Belmont
16. Kara Swisher
17. Scott Beale
18. Marc Andreessen
19. Ryan Block
20. David Sifry
21. Emily Chang
22. Om Malik
23. Timothy Ferriss
24. Nick Douglas
25. John Battelle
26. David Cohn
27. Louis Gray
28. Tom Foremski
29. Tim O'Reilly
30. Ariel Waldman
31. Matt Mullenweg
32. Dean Takahashi
33. Philip Kaplan
34. JD Lasica
35. Sarah Lacy
36. Brian Solis
37. Charlene Li
38. Rafe Needleman
39. Dan Farber
40. Howard Rheingold
41. David McClure
42. Margaret Mason
43. Jason Goldman
44. Leah Culver
45. Chris Shipley
46. Jackson West
47. Liz Gannes
48. Owen Thomas
49. Adeo Ressi
50. Max Levchin

Color ValleyWag unimpressed.

Lists are fun, of course. But I'm decidedly not one of the 50 most influential people in Silicon Valley. This is more an indication of popularity on social media networks, and even there I'm not so sure.

I've been in Aspen all week so missed this announcement from a couple of days ago:

NowPublic announces Silicon Valley "MostPublic Index"
Identifies the Web's 50 most influential people in Silicon Valley

NowPublic, the world's largest participatory news network, today announced its second MostPublic Index, identifying the 50 most influential individuals in Silicon Valley/San Francisco.

The MostPublic Index is a detailed (and transparent) barometer of whose voices are most heard in the digital landscape as new channels???Twitter, Facebook, Flick, YouTube and the like???transform how media is created and spread. Last week, NowPublic identified and announced the 50 MostPublic influencers in New York.

NowPublic???s formula gauges influence and ???publicness??? across four categories:

• Online Visibility
• Presence on User-Generated Content and Social Networking Sites
• Interactivity and Accessibility
• The ???R??? Factor: Presence on Microblogging Platforms (Flickr, Twitter, Tumblr, etc.)

NowPublic examined statistics in each of these categories from Alexa, Compete, Facebook, Flickr, Google, Quantcast, Technorati, YouTube and various other blogs and sites, to create a list of Silicon Valley???s leading influencers. It then narrowed the list to 50 by analyzing and documenting individuals??? presence and popularity in each of these channels, applying a weighted scoring system, determined by the strength of specific traits held in each online community. A detailed account of the scoring system can be viewed here.

Here is NowPublic's list of the MostPublic individuals in Silicon Valley/San Francisco:

1. Robert Scoble
2. Michael Arrington
3. Jack Dorsey
4. Biz Stone
5. Matt Cutts
6. Pete Cashmore
7. Dave Winer
8. Guy Kawasaki
9. Lo??c Le Meur
10. Kevin Rose
11. Merlin Mann
12. Stowe Boyd
13. Jeff Atwood
14. Jeremiah Owyang
15. Veronica Belmont
16. Kara Swisher
17. Scott Beale
18. Marc Andreessen
19. Ryan Block
20. David Sifry
21. Emily Chang
22. Om Malik
23. Timothy Ferriss
24. Nick Douglas
25. John Battelle
26. David Cohn
27. Louis Gray
28. Tom Foremski
29. Tim O'Reilly
30. Ariel Waldman
31. Matt Mullenweg
32. Dean Takahashi
33. Philip Kaplan
34. JD Lasica
35. Sarah Lacy
36. Brian Solis
37. Charlene Li
38. Rafe Needleman
39. Dan Farber
40. Howard Rheingold
41. David McClure
42. Margaret Mason
43. Jason Goldman
44. Leah Culver
45. Chris Shipley
46. Jackson West
47. Liz Gannes
48. Owen Thomas
49. Adeo Ressi
50. Max Levchin

Color ValleyWag unimpressed.

Lists are fun, of course. But I'm decidedly not one of the 50 most influential people in Silicon Valley. This is more an indication of popularity on social media networks, and even there I'm not so sure.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Robert Blum got me to call him an idiot because of this Tweet: FriendFeed only helps if you're dedicating your life to following yet another web site.

Chris Saad took the conversation in a different direction with this Tweet: discussion should occur around the target object - if its a blog then in the comments - not on friendfeed. Which, of course, got this conversation going.

That got Mobile Jones to agree with Chris Saad on this Tweet: Chris is on the right end of this. FF is like is not in the best interests of those who create the content. Which, of course, got this conversation going.

Rob LaGesse wrote a whole blog post about how he thinks FriendFeed is ugly: The service is ugly (to me). It has all kinds of crap I don't care about in my feed. Of course that got this conversation going.

Mark Evans goes even further and says he just can't deal with anything else that'll steal his attention. Of course that started a conversation over on FriendFeed too.

And to put punctuation on this whole story, Corida and others talk about the noise on FriendFeed.

All of these get to the heart of why FriendFeed won't go anywhere other than to early adopter communities who like lots of noise.

I've studied tons of people's reactions to FriendFeed. Here's why it won't go mainstream:

1. Only early adopters care about gluing together various social networks like I do (look at the right side of my blog, for instance, and you'll see travel and schedule and events and photos and videos and more all glued together). Most people aren't on more than one or two services and aren't content creators (of everyone on Upcoming.org, for instance, only a handful of people have more than 5 events and most have none).

2. Normal people (ie, those who aren't on Twitter 18 hours a day) don't like noise. Even on Twitter, what's the number one thing I hear from followers? You're too noisy. FriendFeed brings tons of new noise to normal people, especially if they add a bunch of the friends that FriendFeed recommends (I'm one of them, but the others on that list are among the noisiest people on the Internet). For normal people they can't handle the noise. It's chaotic, confusing, and until they figure out the hide link they will get turned off. Usually when unpassionate or late adopter types get turned off they just hit the back button.

3. There isn't one method of using these services. Some people just want to see their closest friend's baby photos. Other people, like me, want to use these services like a chat room to talk with large numbers of people about today's hottest news. This disconnect pisses both of us off and makes it less likely I'll tell normal users about these services. Of course anyone who reads my blog isn't normal, so I don't mind telling you all about these things incessantly. :-)

4. FriendFeed is frustrating to use even for advanced users. Here, quickly, tell me how you can see only Flickr photos on FriendFeed and block everything else. Hint: there is a way, it's just hard to find. How about, quickly again, tell me how to see all posts that have a comment or a like on them. Sorry, that one isn't possible yet. How about find me all posts from everyone that mentions the word noise in them? Yes, that one is possible, but to do it you gotta get acquainted with FF's advanced search features. At Microsoft we learned no one ever uses those features. Have you figured out how to hide all Twitter messages that don't have a comment on them yet? It's possible too, but you gotta click on the Hide feature and play around. Frustrating, frustrating, frustrating.

5. FriendFeed doesn't work well on mobile phones. Most people around the world use their mobile phones far more often than they use their laptops. So, if you don't have good mobile phone interfaces you can kick your going mainstream dreams in the toilet.

6. Want to find some new friends? The recommended friends feature is pretty cool (albeit frustrating to find) but the problem is you can't figure out why it is presenting the friends it is (hint: it presents the most popular users up front. These are the most noisy users on the service and probably are pretty geeky to boot. People like me, Dave Winer, Louis Gray, Michael Arrington, etc).

7. I can't add new services easily. Qik, for instance, is among my most favorite data type. But how do I get that added? Oh, I gotta add an RSS feed for services that aren't already in the system. But then the videos don't look as nice as, say, YouTube's or Flickr's. That's disappointing.

8. It pisses bloggers off because all their comments are moving onto FriendFeed rather than staying on their blogs. Watch this post, I bet I get more comments over on FriendFeed than here. Now this one does NOT piss me off. I don't really care where you talk about my ideas and I'll go wherever the audience goes (which is why I often commented on other people's blogs). But they do have a point. It'd be nice if bloggers got warned when a conversation was happening about what they wrote and if there were an easy way to join FriendFeed comments and conversations into their own blog commenting systems. When bloggers get pissed off they tend to talk less about new services, which retards their ability to go mainstream.

9. Comments get fragmented, even inside FriendFeed. Why? Well, let's say you write a really great blog post. You'll get shared on tons of people's Google Reader shared feeds. Some comments happen on Louis Gray's FriendFeed. Some happen on mine. Others happen on Thomas Hawk's. Still others happen on other people's feeds. Everyone has their own audience which gets involved and now we have duplicate items all over the place (noise, and not the fun kind) and comment fragmentation.

Well, that's enough. There's more, but these are the biggies, I think. Got any other reasons why FriendFeed won't go mainstream? You know where to leave a comment. I'll be watching for it.

This is part I. In second part I'll explain why FriendFeed will go mainstream.

UPDATE: We're discussing this post over on FriendFeed too.

In the first part of this two-post series you read my ideas on why FriendFeed won't go mainstream. In this part I get to answer why it will go mainstream.

First, something funny: Thomas Hawk just posted this to FriendFeed: Things in life that are addictive: digital photography, Flickr, Tommy's cheeseburgers, those tangy sea salt and vinegar blue chips in the blue bag, coffee, Red Bull, and friendfeed. Of course that started a conversation.

So, why is FriendFeed going to go mainstream:

1. The team. Among the seven people who are currently working on FriendFeed is the guy who gave Google it's don't be evil tag and who wrote Gmail. Another guy on the team did Google Maps. Yet other people on the team did impressive things. This team will be unhappy with themselves if they just get me and Thomas Hawk and Louis Gray to use it. They are building something from the bottom up to be used by millions of people.

2. Them who owns a unique database will be able to build value. FriendFeed knows every item that's been commented on and is building a database of interesting other stuff too.

3. By aggregating all social software sites together they are getting a database that'll let them build a search service that'll be very interesting (and already is to me I already go there at least 20% of the time I want to find something or someone).

4. Their UI sucks and is brilliant at the same time. In the old post you read how it sucks. In this post look at what's brilliant about it. First, it's always fast. You gotta watch this video with Kevin Fox, interaction designer at FriendFeed, to get his philosophy behind building UIs. Think he doesn't know crap about design? Go read his resume (PDF), he designed Gmail 1.0, Google Calendar 1.0, and Google Reader 2.0.

5. It is freaking fast and much more reliable than Twitter. Today I've been putting dozens of Tweets into Twitter and they show up in FriendFeed BEFORE I can refresh the page. It is amazingly fast at gathering new stuff from Twitter. I have not found any other service as reliably fast.

6. It's very flexible. For instance, check out these links:

1. Everyone who has shared an item on Google Reader.
2. Everyone who has shared a song on Last.fm. or on iLike.
3. Everyone who has Tweeted on Twitter (do a test and see how fast yours shows up there).
4. Everyone who has shared a video on YouTube.
5. Everyone who has written a blog post.
6. Everyone who has put, or favorited, a photo on Flickr. On SmugMug. On Picasa.
7. Everyone who has posted something on FriendFeed itself (link or a note).
8. Everyone who has shared an event on Upcoming.
9. Everyone who has bookmarked an item on Del.icio.us.

Those are just a sample of the things you can search on. Just visit the advanced search and select the servce you want

7. FriendFeed is a place where you can study people's gestures and signals. Huh? Well, when I like something in FriendFeed it means I found it to be interesting and not just pure noise. When I comment on something it means I found it important enough to engage with. You can see items I've commented on, items I've liked, and both of them added together. You can also do that for everyone on FriendFeed.

8. If you want to watch everything your kids are doing, you've got to follow them around multiple services. That takes too much time. It's far easier for your kids to just say follow me on FriendFeed.

9. The most interesting early adopters and smart people have already signed up so you can track them. Here's just a small sample:

1. Singer Samantha Murphy.
2. Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
3. Open source developer (did bleeding edge work at BBC, now doing projects at MySpace) Ben Metcalfe.
4. Venture Capitalist Brad Feld (guy behind NewsGator and others).
5. Google exec Bradley Horowitz (while at Yahoo he spearheaded purchase of Flickr, Delicious, and others).
6. Dave Morin, head of Facebook's application platform.
7. Gary Vaynerchuk, owns a wine store in New Jersey that sells $50 million a year and does WineLibrary.tv
8. Joi Ito, head of Creative Commons.
9. Joshua Schacter, founder of Delicious.

I could keep going, but gotta run to catch a plane to New York.

So, which way are you heading? Is FriendFeed going to be an epic fail? Or the best thing since Facebook?

What did I miss on either side of this argument?

UPDATE: the conversation is already underway on FriendFeed here.

UPDATE: The Google News example is reproduced here instead. You're reading this in RSS or email a day after I posted it because this post was so large it broke my Feedburner feed. Too much content breaks the web there you have it. Keep reading for my original argument.

If you've made it this far, you may have noticed the absence of blogs from the sources. So this is far from a representative sample of all of the websites that published a version of this news story.

Let's check out Techmeme, again reproduced in its entirety, because seeing is disbelieving:

Yahoo!:

Yahoo! Issues Statement in Response to Microsoft SUNNYVALE, Calif., May 03, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) Roy Bostock, Chairman of Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO), a leading global Internet company issued the following statement today in response to Microsoft Corporation's announcement that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo!:

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: TechCrunch, StepForth SEO News Blog, BBC NEWS, Forbes, I4U News, VoIP Blog, Geek News Central, Furrier.org, Tech Trader Daily, LiveSide, Paul Kedrosky's and Geek Speaker

Discussion:

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch: Yahoo Responds: The distraction of Microsoft's unsolicited proposal now behind us

Ross Dunn / StepForth SEO News Blog: Microsoft Backs Down from Yahoo

Darren Waters / BBC NEWS | dot.life: Walking away

Elizabeth Corcoran / Forbes: What Microsoft Will Buy Now Expect to hear more from Steve Ballmer.

Luigi Lugmayr / I4U News: Yahoo's Response to Microsoft's Bid Withdrawal

VoIP Blog: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Proposal

Todd Cochrane / Geek News Central: Yahoo is Toast and Yang needs to be Fired

John Furrier / Furrier.org: Victory for Silicon Valley; The Silicon Valley Poison Pill Worked - As Predicted

Eric Savitz / Tech Trader Daily: Ballmer Calls Yang's Bluff: Microsoft Walks

Kip Kniskern / LiveSide: Yahoo! responds to withdrawal - issues statement

Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed: Yahoo's Response to Microsoft's Response to Yahoo

Geek Speaker: Why Yahoo is worth more than 50 billion & why Yahoo! For Good

All Related Discussion

Hide All Related Discussion

RELATED:

Microsoft:

Microsoft Withdraws Proposal to Acquire Yahoo! Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) today announced that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO).

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Search Engine Land, Googling Google, Between the Lines, CNET News.com, Web Worker Daily, TechCrunch, WeBreakStuff, Simon's Blog, I4U News, Microsoft News Tracker, TechBlog, DealBook, Paul Mooney, Pocket PC Thoughts.com, TechSpot, Joe Duck, TechBays, Epicenter, All about Microsoft, Digital Trends, SEO and Tech Daily, Alice Hill's Real Tech News, Mark Evans, Los Angeles Times, WebGuild, Mashable!, Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog, Valleywag, Quick Online Tips, GigaOM, Profy.Com, AppScout, ClickZ News Blog, The Register and Scobleizer

Discussion:

Danny Sullivan / Search Engine Land: Leaving Las Yahoo: Microsoft's $5 Billion Mistake?

Garett Rogers / Googling Google: Microsoft withrawls bid for Yahoo, Google wins

Larry Dignan / Between the Lines: Microsoft walks away from Yahoo: Assessing winners, losers and Plan Bs

Stephen Shankland / CNET News.com: Yahoo-Google ad deal could be announced next week

Mike Gunderloy / Web Worker Daily: Microsoft, Yahoo, and Web Workers

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch: Microsoft/Yahoo: Summary Of Today's News & Bonus Gillmor Gang

Fred Oliveira / WeBreakStuff: MSFT and YHOO: It's finally over

Simon Brocklehurst / Simon's Blog: YAHOO! BLOWS IT - HOW LOW WILL THEY GO?

Luigi Lugmayr / I4U News: Microsoft officially withdraws Yahoo Bid

David Hunter / Microsoft News Tracker: Microsoft withdraws offer for Yahoo

Dwight / TechBlog: Microsoft to Yahoo: Never mind

DealBook: Will Microsoft Really Walk?

Paul Mooney: Yahoo Prevails Microsoft Withdraws Proposal to Acquire Yahoo!

Darius Wey / Pocket PC Thoughts.com: Microsoft Walks Away From Yahoo!

Julio Franco / TechSpot: Weekend tech reading (5.04)

Joe Duck: Ballmer has left the Building

Carlo Maglinao / TechBays: Microsoft Yahoo! Deal: the NO votes win

Betsy Schiffman / Epicenter: Microsoft Walks! Says Yahoo Demands Don't Make Sense

Mary Jo Foley / All about Microsoft: Microsoft takes its ball and leaves Yahoo on the Web 2.0 playground

Geoff Duncan / Digital Trends: Microsoft Abandons Yahoo Takeover

Charlie Anzman / SEO and Tech Daily: Microsoft pulls the plug on Yahoo!

Michael Santo / Alice Hill's Real Tech News: No Microhoo: Microsoft Walks Away from Yahoo! Deal

Mark Evans: Let's Get the (Yahoo-Microsoft Blogging Party) Started

Los Angeles Times: Microsoft drops bid to acquire Yahoo

Joseph Hunkins / WebGuild: Ballmer's Letter to Jerry Yang Withdrawing Microsoft's Offer

Paul Glazowski / Mashable!: Breaking: Microsoft Corporation Rescinds Offer For Yahoo Inc

Todd Bishop / Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog: Ballmer's internal e-mail on Yahoo decision

Owen Thomas / Valleywag: Ballmer to Yang: How stupid are you?

Quick Online Tips: Microsoft Unable to Buy Yahoo!

Om Malik / GigaOM: Microsoft To Yahoo: Take a Hike!

Cyndy Aleo-Carreira / Profy.Com: Steve Stands Jerry Up for the Internet Prom

Brian Heater / AppScout: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo! Bid

Anna Maria Virzi / ClickZ News Blog: Microsoft Withdraws Bid for Yahoo

Drew Cullen / The Register: Microsoft walks away from Yahoo!

Robert Scoble / Scobleizer: The First FriendFeed Event: MSFT and YHOO

Kara Swisher / BoomTown:

MicroHoo: The Odd Couple Meetings Led Nowhere After today's events, I guess you could say Yahoo and Microsoft tried, holding a series of meetings about a possible takeover that ended up proving exactly how incompatible the companies were. Kind of like Oscar Madison and Felix Unger, but not funny in any way at all.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Between the Lines, Valleywag and Paul Kedrosky's

Discussion:

Larry Dignan / Between the Lines: Microsoft walks: Five reasons why it's a good move

Jackson West / Valleywag: YAHOO'S $37 DEMAND TALKS, MICROSOFT'S $33 OFFER WALKS Microsoft

Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed: First Tick-Tock of Da Deal Gone Dead

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary:

OK, so what's Microsoft's plan B? With Yahoo apparently off the table, it's time to see what Microsoft's back-up plan looks like. Microsoft has said for some time that it has a strategy with or without Yahoo, but it's a strategy clearly in need of a jump-start.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs and About Mobility Weblog

Discussion:

Steve / The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs: Ballmer now looking for other companies to not buy

Ceo / About Mobility Weblog: Steve Ballmer as The Creature

DealBook:

Guessing Yahoo's Opening Stock Price Well, Yahoo seems to have gotten what it wanted. The company managed to fend off Microsoft's unwanted advances, even after the software giant sweetened its bid by $5 billion an amount Yahoo felt still wasn't enough.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Silicon Alley Insider and Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog

Discussion:

Henry Blodget / Silicon Alley Insider: Why Yahoo (YHOO) Should Go Ahead With Google Outsourcing Deal (GOOG)

Terry Heaton / Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog: Ack! Microsoft walks away. Winner? Google.

Wall Street Journal:

Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer After Attempt to Bridge Gap in Price Microsoft Corp. said it abandoned its offer for Yahoo Inc., as the two companies failed to bridge a gap between them on price. Microsoft Saturday released a letter from Chief Executive Steve Ballmer

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Peter O'Kelly's Reality Check and Tech Beat

Discussion:

Peter / Peter O'Kelly's Reality Check: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer After Attempt to Bridge Gap in Price - WSJ.com

Rob Hof / Tech Beat: Microsoft Drops Yahoo BidAt Least For Now

Dawn Kawamoto / CNET News.com:

Report: A peek behind the Yahoo-Microsoft meltdown Curious how Microsoft's multi-multi-multi-billion dollar buyout bid for Yahoo sputtered, then crashed? Kara Swisher's BoomTown column in All Things Digital has an interesting account of the missteps, sidesteps

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

Kara Swisher / BoomTown:

Yahoo's Nightmare Scenario: I'm From Google and I'm Here to Help! Here's what a top-notch source at Yahoo joked to me tonight, after Microsoft walked away from its unsolicited takeover bid to acquire the long-troubled Internet giant. Google is now officially our best friend. Oh no.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Groundswell

Discussion:

Charlene Li / Groundswell: What's next for Microsoft and Yahoo!

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch:

Yahoo's Tough Week Ahead At around 4:30 California time today news broke that Microsoft has formally withdrawn its offer to acquire Yahoo (see Ballmer's email to Microsoft employees here). Among other things, that ends a three month stock party where the market value of Yahoo jumped

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Guardian Unlimited, Microsoft Watch, MediaShift and Paul Mooney

Discussion:

Jack Schofield / Guardian Unlimited: Microsoft walks out of Yahoo deal (updated)

Joe Wilcox / Microsoft Watch: The Microsoft-Yahoo Blame Game

Mark Glaser / MediaShift: Yahoo-Microsoft Drama::Takeover Tiff Best Thing to Happen to Yahoo

Paul Mooney: A YAHOO RUN, OR A RUN ON YHOO?

Yi-Wyn Yen / Fortune:

Blame it on Google Microsoft CEO Ballmer said the software giant decided to walk away from a bid because Yahoo would become undesirable' if it formed an alliance with Google. (Fortune) Google proved to be the final straw that broke Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's back.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: MacDailyNews and CNNMoney.com

Discussion:

MacDailyNews: Ballmer's Folly ends: Microsoft abandons Yahoo bid because of Google

Mark M. Meinero / CNNMoney.com: Microsoft withdraws bid for Yahoo

Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed:

Analysis of the Microsoft Decision, Plus Yahoo's Hari-Kari Here is my first-cut analysis of what has happened here: On the friendly front, Yahoo drew a hard line at $37 per share, well above the $33 that Microsoft now says it told Yahoo this week it was willing to go

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: broadstuff

Discussion:

Alan Patrick / broadstuff: MICROHOO NO MORE.. So the deal is off - though whether

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch:

Email From Steve Ballmer To All Microsoft Employees The following email was sent to all Microsoft employees from CEO Steve Ballmer at 5:17 pm PDT (see Breaking: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Bid; Walks Away From Deal): To: Microsoft - All Employees (QBDG)

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: InsideMicrosoft, WebProNews, VentureBeat and Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim

Discussion:

Nathan Weinberg / InsideMicrosoft: Microsoft Drops Plans To Buy Yahoo

Nathan Weinberg / WebProNews: Microsoft Is Done Pursuing Yahoo!

MG Siegler / VentureBeat: Microsoft now has $50 billion burning a hole in its pocket

David Snyder / Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim: Steve Ballmer's Email to Microsoft Employees

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch:
Breaking: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Bid; Walks Away From Deal (Updated)

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: BoomTown, Beyond Binary, Reuters, The Next Web, BBC NEWS, Coop's Corner, Voices, LiveSide, Electronista, Valleywag, mathewingram.com/work, Business Technology, SarahLacy.com, Master of 500 Hats, Thomas Hawk's Digital , Search Engine Journal and WinExtra

Discussion:

Kara Swisher / BoomTown: BoomTown Decodes Microsoft's Steve Ballmer's Letter to Yahoo (The Kiss-Off Edition)

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary: Ballmer's e-mail to staff on Yahoo

Reuters: Microsoft says it withdraws offer for Yahoo

Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten / The Next Web: Microsoft walks away from Yahoo deal

Rory Cellan-Jones / BBC NEWS | dot.life: Microsoft v Yahoo - post-match analysis

Charles Cooper / Coop's Corner: Post-Microhoo: Winners and losers

Ina Fried / Voices: Microsoft's Move: Is It Just a Feint?

Kip Kniskern / LiveSide: No MSFT-YHOO deal; now what? Microsoft just walked away

Electronista: Microsoft backs out of Yahoo bid

Owen Thomas / Valleywag: Is Ballmer on his way out and if so, who's the next CEO?

Mathew / mathewingram.com/work: YHOO and MSFT: Jerry Yang should be fired

Ben Worthen / Business Technology: The Most Famous Non-Deal in Tech History

Sarah Lacy: Or Maybe I Won't Be Working for the Evil Empire

Dave McClure / Master of 500 Hats: MicroHooFreude! (Memo to Jerry: Prepare to be Sued)

Thomas Hawk / Thomas Hawk's Digital Connection: Remember When Thomas Hawk Said If He Were Microsoft He'd Lower His Bid for Yahoo?

Arnold Zafra / Search Engine Journal: Microsoft Cancels the Yahoo Acquisition Deal, Finally!

Steven Hodson / WinExtra: Please tell me it's so

New York Times:
Microsoft Withdraws Its Bid for Yahoo

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: CNET News.com, The Big Picture, deal architect, Slashdot, HipMojo.com and Digg

Discussion:

Stephen Shankland / CNET News.com: Yahoo: Microsoft's price just wasn't right

Ritholtz / The Big Picture: Ballmer, Yang Agree to See Other People

deal architect: Back to customer focus So the Microsoft/Yahoo! deal appears finally off.

Timothy / Slashdot: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Takeover Offer

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan / HipMojo.com: Should Investors Sue or Back Yang?

Digg: Microsoft Withdraws Its Bid for Yahoo

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary:
Microsoft pulls its Yahoo offer

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: DSLreports, Forbes, CNET News.com, Business Week, Smalltalk Tidbits , Scobleizer, Techlog, Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim, InformationWeek, HipMojo.com, Search Engine Watch Blog, paidContent.org, CenterNetworks, Search Engine Land, John Battelle's Searchblog, WebGuild, MacRumors, Engadget, VentureBeat and Digital Daily

Discussion:

KathrynV / DSLreports: Microsoft Rescinds Yahoo Offer - No agreement could be reached in talks yesterday

Elizabeth Corcoran / Forbes: Forget It, Ballmer Says To Yahoo!

Stephen Shankland / CNET News.com: Is Google ad deal really Yahoo's best option?

Robert Hof / Business Week: Microsoft Drops Bid for Yahoo

James A. Robertson / Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants: Reality 1, Scoble 0

Robert Scoble / Scobleizer: How will Yahoo heal after Microsoft walked away?

Harry McCracken / Techlog: No MicroHoo? Hallelujah!

David Snyder / Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim: Microsoft Retreats or Withdrawls, Depends on Your View

Alexander Wolfe / InformationWeek: Microsoft Yanks Yahoo Bid

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan / HipMojo.com: Latest Chess Move: MSFT Withdraws Offer

Kevin Heisler / Search Engine Watch Blog: Breaking: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer; Yahoo Responds

Staci D. Kramer / paidContent.org: Microsoft-Yahoo: Yang's Response: With Distraction Behind Us

Allen Stern / CenterNetworks: What's Next for Yahoo? Merging With AOL Still My Pick

Greg Sterling / Search Engine Land: Microsoft Yanks Its Offer For Yahoo

John Battelle / John Battelle's Searchblog: MICROSOFT BAILS, YAHOO'S GOOGLE THREAT APPEARS TO HAVE WORKED

Joseph Hunkins / WebGuild: Microsoft Walks Away From Yahoo

Arn / MacRumors: Microsoft Walking Away from Yahoo Acquisition

Ryan Block / Engadget: Microsoft pulls bid for Yahoo!, Microhoo will never be

MG Siegler / VentureBeat: Yahoo breaks the wrist, Microsoft walks away

John Paczkowski / Digital Daily: Ballmer to Yang: Dear Jerry, Drop Dead

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary:
Microsoft says proxy battle not worth it

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: BloggingStocks

Discussion:

Peter Cohan / BloggingStocks: It's off. Microsoft withdraws its offer for Yahoo for now

BBC:
Microsoft walks away from Yahoo

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Gizmodo and TECH.BLORGE.com

Discussion:

Jesus Diaz / Gizmodo: Microsoft Retires Yahoo Offer, Won't Try Hostile Takeover

Erna Mahyuni / TECH.BLORGE.com: No Microhoo - Microsoft terminates bid on Yahoo

Kara Swisher / BoomTo

Tags: microsoft yahoo news google discussion ]]>Microsoft withdrawing its offer to buy Yahoo is a sufficiently large story to demonstrate the problem of redundant news content on the web. Google News is currently tracking about 2,000 versions of this story. To get a better sense of why it's a problem to have 2,000 stories about the SAME THING, I've reproduced about ten percent of them below just the headlines and ledes. If you have the stomach to scroll through them all to see what else I have to say about it, check out the sources as you scroll:

UPDATE: The Google News example is reproduced here instead. You're reading this in RSS or email a day after I posted it because this post was so large it broke my Feedburner feed. Too much content breaks the web there you have it. Keep reading for my original argument.

If you've made it this far, you may have noticed the absence of blogs from the sources. So this is far from a representative sample of all of the websites that published a version of this news story.

Let's check out Techmeme, again reproduced in its entirety, because seeing is disbelieving:

Yahoo!:

Yahoo! Issues Statement in Response to Microsoft SUNNYVALE, Calif., May 03, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) Roy Bostock, Chairman of Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO), a leading global Internet company issued the following statement today in response to Microsoft Corporation's announcement that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo!:

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: TechCrunch, StepForth SEO News Blog, BBC NEWS, Forbes, I4U News, VoIP Blog, Geek News Central, Furrier.org, Tech Trader Daily, LiveSide, Paul Kedrosky's and Geek Speaker

Discussion:

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch: Yahoo Responds: The distraction of Microsoft's unsolicited proposal now behind us

Ross Dunn / StepForth SEO News Blog: Microsoft Backs Down from Yahoo

Darren Waters / BBC NEWS | dot.life: Walking away

Elizabeth Corcoran / Forbes: What Microsoft Will Buy Now Expect to hear more from Steve Ballmer.

Luigi Lugmayr / I4U News: Yahoo's Response to Microsoft's Bid Withdrawal

VoIP Blog: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Proposal

Todd Cochrane / Geek News Central: Yahoo is Toast and Yang needs to be Fired

John Furrier / Furrier.org: Victory for Silicon Valley; The Silicon Valley Poison Pill Worked - As Predicted

Eric Savitz / Tech Trader Daily: Ballmer Calls Yang's Bluff: Microsoft Walks

Kip Kniskern / LiveSide: Yahoo! responds to withdrawal - issues statement

Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed: Yahoo's Response to Microsoft's Response to Yahoo

Geek Speaker: Why Yahoo is worth more than 50 billion & why Yahoo! For Good

All Related Discussion

Hide All Related Discussion

RELATED:

Microsoft:

Microsoft Withdraws Proposal to Acquire Yahoo! Microsoft Corp. today announced that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) today announced that it has withdrawn its proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO).

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Search Engine Land, Googling Google, Between the Lines, CNET News.com, Web Worker Daily, TechCrunch, WeBreakStuff, Simon's Blog, I4U News, Microsoft News Tracker, TechBlog, DealBook, Paul Mooney, Pocket PC Thoughts.com, TechSpot, Joe Duck, TechBays, Epicenter, All about Microsoft, Digital Trends, SEO and Tech Daily, Alice Hill's Real Tech News, Mark Evans, Los Angeles Times, WebGuild, Mashable!, Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog, Valleywag, Quick Online Tips, GigaOM, Profy.Com, AppScout, ClickZ News Blog, The Register and Scobleizer

Discussion:

Danny Sullivan / Search Engine Land: Leaving Las Yahoo: Microsoft's $5 Billion Mistake?

Garett Rogers / Googling Google: Microsoft withrawls bid for Yahoo, Google wins

Larry Dignan / Between the Lines: Microsoft walks away from Yahoo: Assessing winners, losers and Plan Bs

Stephen Shankland / CNET News.com: Yahoo-Google ad deal could be announced next week

Mike Gunderloy / Web Worker Daily: Microsoft, Yahoo, and Web Workers

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch: Microsoft/Yahoo: Summary Of Today's News & Bonus Gillmor Gang

Fred Oliveira / WeBreakStuff: MSFT and YHOO: It's finally over

Simon Brocklehurst / Simon's Blog: YAHOO! BLOWS IT - HOW LOW WILL THEY GO?

Luigi Lugmayr / I4U News: Microsoft officially withdraws Yahoo Bid

David Hunter / Microsoft News Tracker: Microsoft withdraws offer for Yahoo

Dwight / TechBlog: Microsoft to Yahoo: Never mind

DealBook: Will Microsoft Really Walk?

Paul Mooney: Yahoo Prevails Microsoft Withdraws Proposal to Acquire Yahoo!

Darius Wey / Pocket PC Thoughts.com: Microsoft Walks Away From Yahoo!

Julio Franco / TechSpot: Weekend tech reading (5.04)

Joe Duck: Ballmer has left the Building

Carlo Maglinao / TechBays: Microsoft Yahoo! Deal: the NO votes win

Betsy Schiffman / Epicenter: Microsoft Walks! Says Yahoo Demands Don't Make Sense

Mary Jo Foley / All about Microsoft: Microsoft takes its ball and leaves Yahoo on the Web 2.0 playground

Geoff Duncan / Digital Trends: Microsoft Abandons Yahoo Takeover

Charlie Anzman / SEO and Tech Daily: Microsoft pulls the plug on Yahoo!

Michael Santo / Alice Hill's Real Tech News: No Microhoo: Microsoft Walks Away from Yahoo! Deal

Mark Evans: Let's Get the (Yahoo-Microsoft Blogging Party) Started

Los Angeles Times: Microsoft drops bid to acquire Yahoo

Joseph Hunkins / WebGuild: Ballmer's Letter to Jerry Yang Withdrawing Microsoft's Offer

Paul Glazowski / Mashable!: Breaking: Microsoft Corporation Rescinds Offer For Yahoo Inc

Todd Bishop / Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog: Ballmer's internal e-mail on Yahoo decision

Owen Thomas / Valleywag: Ballmer to Yang: How stupid are you?

Quick Online Tips: Microsoft Unable to Buy Yahoo!

Om Malik / GigaOM: Microsoft To Yahoo: Take a Hike!

Cyndy Aleo-Carreira / Profy.Com: Steve Stands Jerry Up for the Internet Prom

Brian Heater / AppScout: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo! Bid

Anna Maria Virzi / ClickZ News Blog: Microsoft Withdraws Bid for Yahoo

Drew Cullen / The Register: Microsoft walks away from Yahoo!

Robert Scoble / Scobleizer: The First FriendFeed Event: MSFT and YHOO

Kara Swisher / BoomTown:

MicroHoo: The Odd Couple Meetings Led Nowhere After today's events, I guess you could say Yahoo and Microsoft tried, holding a series of meetings about a possible takeover that ended up proving exactly how incompatible the companies were. Kind of like Oscar Madison and Felix Unger, but not funny in any way at all.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Between the Lines, Valleywag and Paul Kedrosky's

Discussion:

Larry Dignan / Between the Lines: Microsoft walks: Five reasons why it's a good move

Jackson West / Valleywag: YAHOO'S $37 DEMAND TALKS, MICROSOFT'S $33 OFFER WALKS Microsoft

Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed: First Tick-Tock of Da Deal Gone Dead

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary:

OK, so what's Microsoft's plan B? With Yahoo apparently off the table, it's time to see what Microsoft's back-up plan looks like. Microsoft has said for some time that it has a strategy with or without Yahoo, but it's a strategy clearly in need of a jump-start.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs and About Mobility Weblog

Discussion:

Steve / The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs: Ballmer now looking for other companies to not buy

Ceo / About Mobility Weblog: Steve Ballmer as The Creature

DealBook:

Guessing Yahoo's Opening Stock Price Well, Yahoo seems to have gotten what it wanted. The company managed to fend off Microsoft's unwanted advances, even after the software giant sweetened its bid by $5 billion an amount Yahoo felt still wasn't enough.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Silicon Alley Insider and Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog

Discussion:

Henry Blodget / Silicon Alley Insider: Why Yahoo (YHOO) Should Go Ahead With Google Outsourcing Deal (GOOG)

Terry Heaton / Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog: Ack! Microsoft walks away. Winner? Google.

Wall Street Journal:

Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer After Attempt to Bridge Gap in Price Microsoft Corp. said it abandoned its offer for Yahoo Inc., as the two companies failed to bridge a gap between them on price. Microsoft Saturday released a letter from Chief Executive Steve Ballmer

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Peter O'Kelly's Reality Check and Tech Beat

Discussion:

Peter / Peter O'Kelly's Reality Check: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer After Attempt to Bridge Gap in Price - WSJ.com

Rob Hof / Tech Beat: Microsoft Drops Yahoo BidAt Least For Now

Dawn Kawamoto / CNET News.com:

Report: A peek behind the Yahoo-Microsoft meltdown Curious how Microsoft's multi-multi-multi-billion dollar buyout bid for Yahoo sputtered, then crashed? Kara Swisher's BoomTown column in All Things Digital has an interesting account of the missteps, sidesteps

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

Kara Swisher / BoomTown:

Yahoo's Nightmare Scenario: I'm From Google and I'm Here to Help! Here's what a top-notch source at Yahoo joked to me tonight, after Microsoft walked away from its unsolicited takeover bid to acquire the long-troubled Internet giant. Google is now officially our best friend. Oh no.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Groundswell

Discussion:

Charlene Li / Groundswell: What's next for Microsoft and Yahoo!

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch:

Yahoo's Tough Week Ahead At around 4:30 California time today news broke that Microsoft has formally withdrawn its offer to acquire Yahoo (see Ballmer's email to Microsoft employees here). Among other things, that ends a three month stock party where the market value of Yahoo jumped

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Guardian Unlimited, Microsoft Watch, MediaShift and Paul Mooney

Discussion:

Jack Schofield / Guardian Unlimited: Microsoft walks out of Yahoo deal (updated)

Joe Wilcox / Microsoft Watch: The Microsoft-Yahoo Blame Game

Mark Glaser / MediaShift: Yahoo-Microsoft Drama::Takeover Tiff Best Thing to Happen to Yahoo

Paul Mooney: A YAHOO RUN, OR A RUN ON YHOO?

Yi-Wyn Yen / Fortune:

Blame it on Google Microsoft CEO Ballmer said the software giant decided to walk away from a bid because Yahoo would become undesirable' if it formed an alliance with Google. (Fortune) Google proved to be the final straw that broke Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's back.

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: MacDailyNews and CNNMoney.com

Discussion:

MacDailyNews: Ballmer's Folly ends: Microsoft abandons Yahoo bid because of Google

Mark M. Meinero / CNNMoney.com: Microsoft withdraws bid for Yahoo

Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed:

Analysis of the Microsoft Decision, Plus Yahoo's Hari-Kari Here is my first-cut analysis of what has happened here: On the friendly front, Yahoo drew a hard line at $37 per share, well above the $33 that Microsoft now says it told Yahoo this week it was willing to go

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: broadstuff

Discussion:

Alan Patrick / broadstuff: MICROHOO NO MORE.. So the deal is off - though whether

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch:

Email From Steve Ballmer To All Microsoft Employees The following email was sent to all Microsoft employees from CEO Steve Ballmer at 5:17 pm PDT (see Breaking: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Bid; Walks Away From Deal): To: Microsoft - All Employees (QBDG)

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: InsideMicrosoft, WebProNews, VentureBeat and Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim

Discussion:

Nathan Weinberg / InsideMicrosoft: Microsoft Drops Plans To Buy Yahoo

Nathan Weinberg / WebProNews: Microsoft Is Done Pursuing Yahoo!

MG Siegler / VentureBeat: Microsoft now has $50 billion burning a hole in its pocket

David Snyder / Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim: Steve Ballmer's Email to Microsoft Employees

Michael Arrington / TechCrunch:
Breaking: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Bid; Walks Away From Deal (Updated)

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: BoomTown, Beyond Binary, Reuters, The Next Web, BBC NEWS, Coop's Corner, Voices, LiveSide, Electronista, Valleywag, mathewingram.com/work, Business Technology, SarahLacy.com, Master of 500 Hats, Thomas Hawk's Digital , Search Engine Journal and WinExtra

Discussion:

Kara Swisher / BoomTown: BoomTown Decodes Microsoft's Steve Ballmer's Letter to Yahoo (The Kiss-Off Edition)

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary: Ballmer's e-mail to staff on Yahoo

Reuters: Microsoft says it withdraws offer for Yahoo

Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten / The Next Web: Microsoft walks away from Yahoo deal

Rory Cellan-Jones / BBC NEWS | dot.life: Microsoft v Yahoo - post-match analysis

Charles Cooper / Coop's Corner: Post-Microhoo: Winners and losers

Ina Fried / Voices: Microsoft's Move: Is It Just a Feint?

Kip Kniskern / LiveSide: No MSFT-YHOO deal; now what? Microsoft just walked away

Electronista: Microsoft backs out of Yahoo bid

Owen Thomas / Valleywag: Is Ballmer on his way out and if so, who's the next CEO?

Mathew / mathewingram.com/work: YHOO and MSFT: Jerry Yang should be fired

Ben Worthen / Business Technology: The Most Famous Non-Deal in Tech History

Sarah Lacy: Or Maybe I Won't Be Working for the Evil Empire

Dave McClure / Master of 500 Hats: MicroHooFreude! (Memo to Jerry: Prepare to be Sued)

Thomas Hawk / Thomas Hawk's Digital Connection: Remember When Thomas Hawk Said If He Were Microsoft He'd Lower His Bid for Yahoo?

Arnold Zafra / Search Engine Journal: Microsoft Cancels the Yahoo Acquisition Deal, Finally!

Steven Hodson / WinExtra: Please tell me it's so

New York Times:
Microsoft Withdraws Its Bid for Yahoo

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: CNET News.com, The Big Picture, deal architect, Slashdot, HipMojo.com and Digg

Discussion:

Stephen Shankland / CNET News.com: Yahoo: Microsoft's price just wasn't right

Ritholtz / The Big Picture: Ballmer, Yang Agree to See Other People

deal architect: Back to customer focus So the Microsoft/Yahoo! deal appears finally off.

Timothy / Slashdot: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Takeover Offer

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan / HipMojo.com: Should Investors Sue or Back Yang?

Digg: Microsoft Withdraws Its Bid for Yahoo

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary:
Microsoft pulls its Yahoo offer

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: DSLreports, Forbes, CNET News.com, Business Week, Smalltalk Tidbits , Scobleizer, Techlog, Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim, InformationWeek, HipMojo.com, Search Engine Watch Blog, paidContent.org, CenterNetworks, Search Engine Land, John Battelle's Searchblog, WebGuild, MacRumors, Engadget, VentureBeat and Digital Daily

Discussion:

KathrynV / DSLreports: Microsoft Rescinds Yahoo Offer - No agreement could be reached in talks yesterday

Elizabeth Corcoran / Forbes: Forget It, Ballmer Says To Yahoo!

Stephen Shankland / CNET News.com: Is Google ad deal really Yahoo's best option?

Robert Hof / Business Week: Microsoft Drops Bid for Yahoo

James A. Robertson / Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants: Reality 1, Scoble 0

Robert Scoble / Scobleizer: How will Yahoo heal after Microsoft walked away?

Harry McCracken / Techlog: No MicroHoo? Hallelujah!

David Snyder / Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim: Microsoft Retreats or Withdrawls, Depends on Your View

Alexander Wolfe / InformationWeek: Microsoft Yanks Yahoo Bid

Ashkan Karbasfrooshan / HipMojo.com: Latest Chess Move: MSFT Withdraws Offer

Kevin Heisler / Search Engine Watch Blog: Breaking: Microsoft Withdraws Yahoo Offer; Yahoo Responds

Staci D. Kramer / paidContent.org: Microsoft-Yahoo: Yang's Response: With Distraction Behind Us

Allen Stern / CenterNetworks: What's Next for Yahoo? Merging With AOL Still My Pick

Greg Sterling / Search Engine Land: Microsoft Yanks Its Offer For Yahoo

John Battelle / John Battelle's Searchblog: MICROSOFT BAILS, YAHOO'S GOOGLE THREAT APPEARS TO HAVE WORKED

Joseph Hunkins / WebGuild: Microsoft Walks Away From Yahoo

Arn / MacRumors: Microsoft Walking Away from Yahoo Acquisition

Ryan Block / Engadget: Microsoft pulls bid for Yahoo!, Microhoo will never be

MG Siegler / VentureBeat: Yahoo breaks the wrist, Microsoft walks away

John Paczkowski / Digital Daily: Ballmer to Yang: Dear Jerry, Drop Dead

Ina Fried / Beyond Binary:
Microsoft says proxy battle not worth it

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: BloggingStocks

Discussion:

Peter Cohan / BloggingStocks: It's off. Microsoft withdraws its offer for Yahoo for now

BBC:
Microsoft walks away from Yahoo

Link Search: Ask, Technorati, Sphere, Google, and IceRocket

+

Discussion: Gizmodo and TECH.BLORGE.com

Discussion:

Jesus Diaz / Gizmodo: Microsoft Retires Yahoo Offer, Won't Try Hostile Takeover

Erna Mahyuni / TECH.BLORGE.com: No Microhoo - Microsoft terminates bid on Yahoo

Kara Swisher / BoomTo

Tags: microsoft yahoo news google discussion ]]> Mon, 05 May 2008 04:21:15 -0400 tag:croncast.com,3967 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/260494928/ Shared item Most people have thousands of digital photos sitting on their hard drive. And the vast majority of those photos aren't tagged or searchable. Want to find the 300 pictures of your youngest son amongst 10,000 others? It's not going to happen. Unless you've been diligently tagging and categorizing those photos over the years, and who does that?

The problem is obvious. The solution, not so much. A trail of failed startups have tried to tackle the problem with a fairly serious application of technology, including: Riya (now focused on ecommerce via Like.com), Ookles (never launched), and Polar Rose (in private beta for nearly a year), among others.

And now suddenly TagCow appears, which allows users to upload photos and have them tagged within a few minutes. The technology appears to be magic, meaning there's no explanation of it.

If there's a mountain in the photo, it's tagged. A dog? yep. A yellow cup? Absolutely. It does people, too. Upload an image of a person and say who it is, and all other images you upload will be tagged with that person, too. The service also integrates with Flickr and will auto tag the photos you have on the service.

Thomas Hawk, the CEO of photo site Zooomr, tried the service and declared it really, really cool, although he wonders how it works.

The answer is, humans do it. I note that the TagCow site is careful not to say anything about the tagging process, and never use the word automated or anything else that would suggests computers are doing the work. Munjal Shah, the founder of Riya/Like, agreed, noting that it recognized a witch in Thomas' photo - he says this just isn't something a computer can do today.

I haven't confirmed this yet. I've emailed the company for a description of how the service works but have yet to hear back. Until we do, I'm betting that humans are the taggers. Note that Google has effectively thrown in the towel and uses humans for this kind of work, too.

TagCow appears to be offering the service for free, so the cost side of the business may be a problem for them down the road. And the business is definitely a little sketchy. Worried about the privacy of your data? Just don't click on their Privacy Policy or Terms of Use: Privacy policy is TBD. and Legal stuff TBD. Not exactly a way to build confidence.

CrunchBase Information

TagCow

Information provided by CrunchBase

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it's time for you to find a new Job2.0

Tags: photos service tagged tagcow problem ]]>Most people have thousands of digital photos sitting on their hard drive. And the vast majority of those photos aren't tagged or searchable. Want to find the 300 pictures of your youngest son amongst 10,000 others? It's not going to happen. Unless you've been diligently tagging and categorizing those photos over the years, and who does that?

The problem is obvious. The solution, not so much. A trail of failed startups have tried to tackle the problem with a fairly serious application of technology, including: Riya (now focused on ecommerce via Like.com), Ookles (never launched), and Polar Rose (in private beta for nearly a year), among others.

And now suddenly TagCow appears, which allows users to upload photos and have them tagged within a few minutes. The technology appears to be magic, meaning there's no explanation of it.

If there's a mountain in the photo, it's tagged. A dog? yep. A yellow cup? Absolutely. It does people, too. Upload an image of a person and say who it is, and all other images you upload will be tagged with that person, too. The service also integrates with Flickr and will auto tag the photos you have on the service.

Thomas Hawk, the CEO of photo site Zooomr, tried the service and declared it really, really cool, although he wonders how it works.

The answer is, humans do it. I note that the TagCow site is careful not to say anything about the tagging process, and never use the word automated or anything else that would suggests computers are doing the work. Munjal Shah, the founder of Riya/Like, agreed, noting that it recognized a witch in Thomas' photo - he says this just isn't something a computer can do today.

I haven't confirmed this yet. I've emailed the company for a description of how the service works but have yet to hear back. Until we do, I'm betting that humans are the taggers. Note that Google has effectively thrown in the towel and uses humans for this kind of work, too.

TagCow appears to be offering the service for free, so the cost side of the business may be a problem for them down the road. And the business is definitely a little sketchy. Worried about the privacy of your data? Just don't click on their Privacy Policy or Terms of Use: Privacy policy is TBD. and Legal stuff TBD. Not exactly a way to build confidence.

CrunchBase Information

TagCow

Information provided by CrunchBase

Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it's time for you to find a new Job2.0

Tags: photos service tagged tagcow problem ]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 01:46:35 -0400 tag:croncast.com,3777 http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~3/259127372/article.pl Shared item Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Tags: edison recorded recording researchers little ]]>Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Tags: edison recorded recording researchers little ]]> Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:25:00 -0400 tag:croncast.com,3758 http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/03/adwords_ad_crea.htm Shared item By Eric Goldman

Storus Corp. v. Aroa Marketing Inc., No. C-06-2454 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2008).

(Sorry for my delay blogging this one).

A federal district court has held that displaying a competitor's trademark in Adwords ad copy constitutes impermissible initial interest confusion, leading to a summary judgment win for the trademark owner. This is one of the first competitor-vs.-competitor search advertising cases where the plaintiff has won the trademark claims. This case also has an interesting and rare discussion about the trademark implications of a retailer's internal search engine.

Claims Against Aroa

Storus distributes money clips under the trademark "smart money clips." Storus was able to get a federal registration for the mark, which is interesting because I'd love to see the showing of secondary meaning. Given the registration, Aroa instead tries to knock out "smart" as a laudatory phrase, but the court isn't convinced. Thus, the court permits Storus to proceed with a pathetic descriptive mark.

Aroa sells competitive money clips. Through Adwords, it purchased the keyword "smart money clip" to display the following ad:

Smart Money Clip

www.steinhausenonline.com Elegant Steinhausen accessories. Perfect to add to any collection.

Per Google's standard formatting, the trademark shows up bold and underlined, which the court says overshadows Aroa's display of its own trademarks in the ad copy. The court also invokes initial interest confusion (as part of the Ninth Circuit's inconsistently invoked "Internet trilogy" likelihood of consumer confusion analysis) and notes that "defendants offer no evidence to show a lack of actual initial interest confusion." Summary judgment for plaintiff.

Claims Against Skymall

Skymall is an online retailer of Aroa products. Storus alleges that Skymall included the term "smart money clip" on Aroa product pages, which meant that if a person searched for "smart money clip" in Skymall's internal search engine, Aroa's products would appear in the search results. Storus portrayed this as initial interest confusion, but the court wasn't persuaded enough to grant summary judgment. Instead, the court observes that "a page offering an Aroa money clip will appear as a search result solely because the consumer searches using the phrase money clip, irrespective of whether the consumer adds the word smart to the search term and irrespective of whether the page contains the word smart." Isn't it amazing that a page containing the phrase "smart money clip" would also appear for a search on "money clip"?!

Implications

On the surface, this case looks problematic for the search advertising industry. Any time a search advertising practice is deemed infringing, it should promptly eliminate all similar ads from other advertisers, taking a chunk of revenues out of search engine pockets. Further, when advertisers are liable for trademark infringement, it increases the risk that search engines will be contributorily liable for those infringing ads.

Yet, Aroa's practices here (displaying a competitor's trademark in the ad copy) are already restricted by all of the search engine trademark policies. Therefore, this ruling shouldn't reduce much ad revenue for search engines.

But that raises the obvious question: why didn't Storus just invoke these search engine policies to shut down Aroa? As Dennis Toeppen might have said, perhaps Storus' lawyer wanted a new boat, because this trademark lawsuit made absolutely no financial sense for Storus. The court determines that over 11 months Aroa got 1,374 clicks on its ads (from 36,164 ad impressions, yielding a 3.7% clickthrough rate--not bad). If we value each click at $1/click (a generous amount given that Aroa sells its money clip for $30), Storus could have acquired the "diverted" clicks for $1,374--an amount that is surely no more than 5% (and perhaps even less than 1%) of what Storus spent in this lawsuit. Smart business decision there, guys.

Doctrinally, this case is a textbook example of how the initial interest confusion doctrine is completely bogus. As I've said before, a defendant cannot mount an adequate defense against the initial interest confusion doctrine because the doctrine lacks any rigorous definition or normative support in the first place. The defense challenge is especially problematic where, as here, a court improperly puts the burden on the defendant to disprove that consumers experienced initial interest confusion. Exactly what proof would satisfy the court here? I can't answer this and I bet the court couldn't either, and I can go further and assert that evidence to disprove initial interest confusion simply does not exist at all.

This court also unfortunately buys into the tired and outdated syllogism that every click on Aroa's ad was a diverted consumer. As I've explained here, this massively overstates the quantum of diversion (whatever that means) because we don't know what consumers expected to find when they entered the search term smart money clip. The low general risk of diversion is even lower here because consumers saw Aroa's trademarks in the ad copy, further reducing the risk that anyone was confused by the time they decided to click on the ad.

Other comments on this case:
* Thomas O'Toole
* Tech LawForum
* IP Law Observer
* Las Vegas Trademark Attorney

Tags: aroa search money storus court ]]>By Eric Goldman

Storus Corp. v. Aroa Marketing Inc., No. C-06-2454 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2008).

(Sorry for my delay blogging this one).

A federal district court has held that displaying a competitor's trademark in Adwords ad copy constitutes impermissible initial interest confusion, leading to a summary judgment win for the trademark owner. This is one of the first competitor-vs.-competitor search advertising cases where the plaintiff has won the trademark claims. This case also has an interesting and rare discussion about the trademark implications of a retailer's internal search engine.

Claims Against Aroa

Storus distributes money clips under the trademark "smart money clips." Storus was able to get a federal registration for the mark, which is interesting because I'd love to see the showing of secondary meaning. Given the registration, Aroa instead tries to knock out "smart" as a laudatory phrase, but the court isn't convinced. Thus, the court permits Storus to proceed with a pathetic descriptive mark.

Aroa sells competitive money clips. Through Adwords, it purchased the keyword "smart money clip" to display the following ad:

Smart Money Clip

www.steinhausenonline.com Elegant Steinhausen accessories. Perfect to add to any collection.

Per Google's standard formatting, the trademark shows up bold and underlined, which the court says overshadows Aroa's display of its own trademarks in the ad copy. The court also invokes initial interest confusion (as part of the Ninth Circuit's inconsistently invoked "Internet trilogy" likelihood of consumer confusion analysis) and notes that "defendants offer no evidence to show a lack of actual initial interest confusion." Summary judgment for plaintiff.

Claims Against Skymall

Skymall is an online retailer of Aroa products. Storus alleges that Skymall included the term "smart money clip" on Aroa product pages, which meant that if a person searched for "smart money clip" in Skymall's internal search engine, Aroa's products would appear in the search results. Storus portrayed this as initial interest confusion, but the court wasn't persuaded enough to grant summary judgment. Instead, the court observes that "a page offering an Aroa money clip will appear as a search result solely because the consumer searches using the phrase money clip, irrespective of whether the consumer adds the word smart to the search term and irrespective of whether the page contains the word smart." Isn't it amazing that a page containing the phrase "smart money clip" would also appear for a search on "money clip"?!

Implications

On the surface, this case looks problematic for the search advertising industry. Any time a search advertising practice is deemed infringing, it should promptly eliminate all similar ads from other advertisers, taking a chunk of revenues out of search engine pockets. Further, when advertisers are liable for trademark infringement, it increases the risk that search engines will be contributorily liable for those infringing ads.

Yet, Aroa's practices here (displaying a competitor's trademark in the ad copy) are already restricted by all of the search engine trademark policies. Therefore, this ruling shouldn't reduce much ad revenue for search engines.

But that raises the obvious question: why didn't Storus just invoke these search engine policies to shut down Aroa? As Dennis Toeppen might have said, perhaps Storus' lawyer wanted a new boat, because this trademark lawsuit made absolutely no financial sense for Storus. The court determines that over 11 months Aroa got 1,374 clicks on its ads (from 36,164 ad impressions, yielding a 3.7% clickthrough rate--not bad). If we value each click at $1/click (a generous amount given that Aroa sells its money clip for $30), Storus could have acquired the "diverted" clicks for $1,374--an amount that is surely no more than 5% (and perhaps even less than 1%) of what Storus spent in this lawsuit. Smart business decision there, guys.

Doctrinally, this case is a textbook example of how the initial interest confusion doctrine is completely bogus. As I've said before, a defendant cannot mount an adequate defense against the initial interest confusion doctrine because the doctrine lacks any rigorous definition or normative support in the first place. The defense challenge is especially problematic where, as here, a court improperly puts the burden on the defendant to disprove that consumers experienced initial interest confusion. Exactly what proof would satisfy the court here? I can't answer this and I bet the court couldn't either, and I can go further and assert that evidence to disprove initial interest confusion simply does not exist at all.

This court also unfortunately buys into the tired and outdated syllogism that every click on Aroa's ad was a diverted consumer. As I've explained here, this massively overstates the quantum of diversion (whatever that means) because we don't know what consumers expected to find when they entered the search term smart money clip. The low general risk of diversion is even lower here because consumers saw Aroa's trademarks in the ad copy, further reducing the risk that anyone was confused by the time they decided to click on the ad.

Other comments on this case:
* Thomas O'Toole
* Tech LawForum
* IP Law Observer
* Las Vegas Trademark Attorney

Tags: aroa search money storus court ]]> Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:05:53 -0400 tag:croncast.com,3747 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/ThomasHawksDigitalConnection/~3/242885997/top-10-places-for-photography-in-san.html Shared item

One of the most common emails I get from readers is an email letting me know that they are coming to visit San Francisco and asking what I'd recommend that a visitor shoot while here on their trip.

With that in mind, I thought I'd put together a post today of what I feel are the top 10 not to be missed photographic sites to shoot while you visit.

To dig deeper into some of the things to shoot in the San Francisco Bay Area I've set up two collections on Flickr.

The first collection is called Bay Area Photographic Destinations and includes 74 different shooting sites that you might want to consider on your visit.

The second collection is called The Micro Neighborhoods of the San Francisco Bay Area and covers 40 neighborhoods in the Bay Area that you might want to explore further.

I've highlighted different views of the points of interest with links so that you can get a better idea what I'm talking about. Most images are geotagged so you should be able to find them pretty easily. If you can't find a site for whatever reason, shoot me an email or comment and I'll try to point you in the right direction.

So on with the list.

#1 The Golden Gate Bridge. This probably goes without saying, but the Golden Gate Bridge is probably the most photographed tourist spot in San Francico. That said, even as a local, I am constantly amazed at the shots I am able to get of the Bridge with each subsequent visit. There are four primary places that you should consider shooting the bridge from. The first one is simply to shoot on the bridge itself. I'd recommend both walking and having someone else drive while you shoot across the bridge. The three other spots I'd recommend shooting the bridge from are Fort Point (just under the bridge to the East), Baker Beach (a great beach West of the Bridge), and the Marin Headlines (many vista points just northwest of the bridge). There is also a spot just south of the bridge where you can get out of your car and shoot straight on at the bridge.

#2 Alcatraz. Not many things are more fun to shoot than abandoned old prisons. The best tip here is to reserve your ferry trip out to Alcatraz *early*. You will not be able to reserve a ride if you try and make your reservation when you are already here for your visit. Also I'd recommend making a reservation for a mid to late afternoon visit. This will give you an opportunity to shoot the prison during the day and after dark. The prison feels even spookier after dark and you can also get some great vista shots of San Francisco from the island (bring a tripod).

#3 Twin Peaks. At the top of Twin Peaks in San Francisco is one of the greatest vistas to shoot in the world. You can see the entire city of San Francisco as well as the Bay Bridge and Oakland. I find that this view is best shot at night. In addition to views of the City, City Hall, the Transamerica Building, downtown etc., there is an excellent far away view of the Golden Gate Bridge from this point as well as a great opportunity to shoot Sutro Tower.

#4 The Museums. The SF MOMA doesn't allow photography in their galleries (shame on them) but you can still sneak photos here and there. The crown jewel for photographers in San Francisco though is the de Young. Although the de Young doesn't allow tripods or backpacks (wear a photo vest), they do have an open policy towards photography. The other museum that you may want to visit is the Oakland Museum of California (currently under renovation so not 100% what it should be at present). You can take the BART over to the 12th Street BART station in Oakland and walk over to shoot the Oakland Museum of California. The Asian Art Museum allows photography as well and is a great shoot. There is also a great vintage arcade game musuem called Musee Mecanique in Fisherman's Wharf.

#5 The Hotels. There are a number of hotels where you can get *great* overhead shots of San Francisco. Because hotels are fairly unrestrictive about who goes in and out, even if you are not a guest at a given hotel you can still gain access pretty easily to shoot.

The first hotel shot I recommend is from the catwalk atop the Mandarin Hotel. The Mandarin Hotel is the tallest hotel in San Francisco and there is the most amazing catwalk connecting it's two towers on the top floor. You will catch a fantastic view of North Beach and the Transamerica Building from up there, especially at dusk.

The second hotel I'd recommend shooting from is the Financial District Hilton on Kearny. You'll need to slip into the elevator with someone with a elevator key, but the views from the stairwell on the north side of the hotel are the best views of Coit Tower in the city.

The third hotel I'd recommend shooting from is the Fairmont Hotel which sits atop San Francisco's Nob Hill. Take the elevator on the north west side of the hotel to the second floor from the top (the elevator won't let you up to the Penthouse which is the Crown Room). Get off at the second from the top floor and make your way into the stairwell and use the employee service elevator to get to the top of the Crown Room (ignore the no trespassing signs). Usually it's empty and you'll have an amazing view atop the world all to yourself. I recommend shooting this pre and post sunrise.

The last hotel I'd recommend visiting is the Hyatt Grand Regency. Not only does this hotel have one of the most amazing modern interiors in the world of architecture, if you take the modernistic elevators up to as high a floor as you can you can sneak out the fire staircase on the east side of the hotel to get a spectacular view of the Bay and the Ferry Building. Make sure you prop this door open behind you as it locks and you'll be stuck climbing down all the stairs if you don't.

#5 Chinatown / North Beach. Chinatown and North Beach are comfortably close to each other by way of walking distances. Try walking up and down a few of the North to South streets in Chinatown (Grant, Stockton, Powell) to get some of the great neighborhood culture. After shooting Chinatown, make your way North to North Beach. There are some great night shots of the neon of the strip clubs on Broadway as well as great views in Washington Square Park of St. Peter and Paul church as well as beautiful views up at the top of Coit Tower.

#6 Haight Ashbury / Mission District. Not necessarily within walking distance, Haight Ashbury and The Mission are two of the best neighborhoods to shoot to see some of the best cultural sites in San Francisco. Both neighborhoods are rich with street art, graffiti and street murals and have lots of funky stores and art galleries where you can shoot the windows from the street. You'll do best in the Haight sticking close to upper Haight Street itself. With regards to the Mission District I'd recommend shooting around Mission and 24th Streets. Especially pay attention to all of the little alleys shooting off of 24th Street and Mission itself. This is where you will find some of the best street art in San Francisco.

#7 City Hall. City Hall is one of the architectural high points of San Francisco. With unrestricted access to most of the floors of the building you can get several great vantage points to shoot the interior of the building. Bring a wide angle lens with you if you can. These shots work especially well there.

#8 The Ferry Building. Once a decrepited old rats maze of endless coridors of offices (if only I'd had more foresight back then to shoot them!), the San Francisco Ferry Building has transformed itself into a mecca for foodies. In it's restoration it was also rebuilt to showcase the architectural beauty that it really is. Be sure and try to make your way up to the second floor and take the stairs just to the left of the grand staircase as you go up them. If you can act naturally enough like you work in the building you can squeak past the security guard and make your way up to a stunning interior walking bridge where you will get the best wide angled shots of the building of all. Try to visit the Ferry Building on one of the days (Tuesday and Saturday) where the farmer's market is going on to get even more great shots.

#9 The Palace of Fine Arts / Exploratorium. The Palace of Fine Arts is a building in San Francisco originally built for the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition. It's especially stunning at night. Be sure to try to shoot a bit under the dome of the building to get a shot that looks like this.

The Exploratorium is a science museum inside the Palace of Fine Arts building. Although especially great for kids, the museum also has lots of fun things for adults to shoot as well.

#10 The cemeteries. There are two cemeteries that I'd especially recommend shooting in San Francisco. Neither are particularly easy to get to, but if you like shooting dramatic cemeteries both are worth a visit.

The first is the San Francisco National Cemetery in the Presidio. This is a large military cemetery with rows and rows and rows of identical grave markers. In addition to the stones themselves, there are dramatic views of the Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Presidio from the top of this cemetery.

The second cemetery I'd recommend visiting is Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland. You'll probably want to rent a car to get to this location as it's not so convenient, but this cemetery has the most spectacular cemetery sculpture in the entire Bay Area. This cemetery is where the wealthiest in San Francisco's days gone by were buried and has dramatic sculptures of angels especially. Don't miss Crocker's angel.

There are lots of other great places to shoot in and around San Francisco. Browse some of my collections for some other great spots and feel free to comment if you have questions on other spots to shoot.

Bonus links:

Best Chinese Food in San Francisco: Henry's Hunan (Downtown/Chinatown)

Best Mexican Food in San Francisco: La Taqueria (Mission District)

Best Reasonably Priced Sushi: Godzilla Sushi (Pacific Heights)

Best Expensive Sushi: Sushi Ran (Sausalito)

Best Breakfast Spot in San Francisco: Sears Fine Food (Union Square)

Best Used CD Store in San Francisco: Amoeba (Haight)

Best Wine Store: K&L Wines (South of Market)

Best Wine Bar: Ferry Plaza Wine Merchant (Ferry Building)

Best Camera/Photo Store: None. They all are pretty much overpriced. Save yourself some money and make sure to buy from B&H ahead of your trip.


Tags: san francisco shoot best bridge ]]>

One of the most common emails I get from readers is an email letting me know that they are coming to visit San Francisco and asking what I'd recommend that a visitor shoot while here on their trip.

With that in mind, I thought I'd put together a post today of what I feel are the top 10 not to be missed photographic sites to shoot while you visit.

To dig deeper into some of the things to shoot in the San Francisco Bay Area I've set up two collections on Flickr.

The first collection is called Bay Area Photographic Destinations and includes 74 different shooting sites that you might want to consider on your visit.

The second collection is called The Micro Neighborhoods of the San Francisco Bay Area and covers 40 neighborhoods in the Bay Area that you might want to explore further.

I've highlighted different views of the points of interest with links so that you can get a better idea what I'm talking about. Most images are geotagged so you should be able to find them pretty easily. If you can't find a site for whatever reason, shoot me an email or comment and I'll try to point you in the right direction.

So on with the list.

#1 The Golden Gate Bridge. This probably goes without saying, but the Golden Gate Bridge is probably the most photographed tourist spot in San Francico. That said, even as a local, I am constantly amazed at the shots I am able to get of the Bridge with each subsequent visit. There are four primary places that you should consider shooting the bridge from. The first one is simply to shoot on the bridge itself. I'd recommend both walking and having someone else drive while you shoot across the bridge. The three other spots I'd recommend shooting the bridge from are Fort Point (just under the bridge to the East), Baker Beach (a great beach West of the Bridge), and the Marin Headlines (many vista points just northwest of the bridge). There is also a spot just south of the bridge where you can get out of your car and shoot straight on at the bridge.

#2 Alcatraz. Not many things are more fun to shoot than abandoned old prisons. The best tip here is to reserve your ferry trip out to Alcatraz *early*. You will not be able to reserve a ride if you try and make your reservation when you are already here for your visit. Also I'd recommend making a reservation for a mid to late afternoon visit. This will give you an opportunity to shoot the prison during the day and after dark. The prison feels even spookier after dark and you can also get some great vista shots of San Francisco from the island (bring a tripod).

#3 Twin Peaks. At the top of Twin Peaks in San Francisco is one of the greatest vistas to shoot in the world. You can see the entire city of San Francisco as well as the Bay Bridge and Oakland. I find that this view is best shot at night. In addition to views of the City, City Hall, the Transamerica Building, downtown etc., there is an excellent far away view of the Golden Gate Bridge from this point as well as a great opportunity to shoot Sutro Tower.

#4 The Museums. The SF MOMA doesn't allow photography in their galleries (shame on them) but you can still sneak photos here and there. The crown jewel for photographers in San Francisco though is the de Young. Although the de Young doesn't allow tripods or backpacks (wear a photo vest), they do have an open policy towards photography. The other museum that you may want to visit is the Oakland Museum of California (currently under renovation so not 100% what it should be at present). You can take the BART over to the 12th Street BART station in Oakland and walk over to shoot the Oakland Museum of California. The Asian Art Museum allows photography as well and is a great shoot. There is also a great vintage arcade game musuem called Musee Mecanique in Fisherman's Wharf.

#5 The Hotels. There are a number of hotels where you can get *great* overhead shots of San Francisco. Because hotels are fairly unrestrictive about who goes in and out, even if you are not a guest at a given hotel you can still gain access pretty easily to shoot.

The first hotel shot I recommend is from the catwalk atop the Mandarin Hotel. The Mandarin Hotel is the tallest hotel in San Francisco and there is the most amazing catwalk connecting it's two towers on the top floor. You will catch a fantastic view of North Beach and the Transamerica Building from up there, especially at dusk.

The second hotel I'd recommend shooting from is the Financial District Hilton on Kearny. You'll need to slip into the elevator with someone with a elevator key, but the views from the stairwell on the north side of the hotel are the best views of Coit Tower in the city.

The third hotel I'd recommend shooting from is the Fairmont Hotel which sits atop San Francisco's Nob Hill. Take the elevator on the north west side of the hotel to the second floor from the top (the elevator won't let you up to the Penthouse which is the Crown Room). Get off at the second from the top floor and make your way into the stairwell and use the employee service elevator to get to the top of the Crown Room (ignore the no trespassing signs). Usually it's empty and you'll have an amazing view atop the world all to yourself. I recommend shooting this pre and post sunrise.

The last hotel I'd recommend visiting is the Hyatt Grand Regency. Not only does this hotel have one of the most amazing modern interiors in the world of architecture, if you take the modernistic elevators up to as high a floor as you can you can sneak out the fire staircase on the east side of the hotel to get a spectacular view of the Bay and the Ferry Building. Make sure you prop this door open behind you as it locks and you'll be stuck climbing down all the stairs if you don't.

#5 Chinatown / North Beach. Chinatown and North Beach are comfortably close to each other by way of walking distances. Try walking up and down a few of the North to South streets in Chinatown (Grant, Stockton, Powell) to get some of the great neighborhood culture. After shooting Chinatown, make your way North to North Beach. There are some great night shots of the neon of the strip clubs on Broadway as well as great views in Washington Square Park of St. Peter and Paul church as well as beautiful views up at the top of Coit Tower.

#6 Haight Ashbury / Mission District. Not necessarily within walking distance, Haight Ashbury and The Mission are two of the best neighborhoods to shoot to see some of the best cultural sites in San Francisco. Both neighborhoods are rich with street art, graffiti and street murals and have lots of funky stores and art galleries where you can shoot the windows from the street. You'll do best in the Haight sticking close to upper Haight Street itself. With regards to the Mission District I'd recommend shooting around Mission and 24th Streets. Especially pay attention to all of the little alleys shooting off of 24th Street and Mission itself. This is where you will find some of the best street art in San Francisco.

#7 City Hall. City Hall is one of the architectural high points of San Francisco. With unrestricted access to most of the floors of the building you can get several great vantage points to shoot the interior of the building. Bring a wide angle lens with you if you can. These shots work especially well there.

#8 The Ferry Building. Once a decrepited old rats maze of endless coridors of offices (if only I'd had more foresight back then to shoot them!), the San Francisco Ferry Building has transformed itself into a mecca for foodies. In it's restoration it was also rebuilt to showcase the architectural beauty that it really is. Be sure and try to make your way up to the second floor and take the stairs just to the left of the grand staircase as you go up them. If you can act naturally enough like you work in the building you can squeak past the security guard and make your way up to a stunning interior walking bridge where you will get the best wide angled shots of the building of all. Try to visit the Ferry Building on one of the days (Tuesday and Saturday) where the farmer's market is going on to get even more great shots.

#9 The Palace of Fine Arts / Exploratorium. The Palace of Fine Arts is a building in San Francisco originally built for the 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition. It's especially stunning at night. Be sure to try to shoot a bit under the dome of the building to get a shot that looks like this.

The Exploratorium is a science museum inside the Palace of Fine Arts building. Although especially great for kids, the museum also has lots of fun things for adults to shoot as well.

#10 The cemeteries. There are two cemeteries that I'd especially recommend shooting in San Francisco. Neither are particularly easy to get to, but if you like shooting dramatic cemeteries both are worth a visit.

The first is the San Francisco National Cemetery in the Presidio. This is a large military cemetery with rows and rows and rows of identical grave markers. In addition to the stones themselves, there are dramatic views of the Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Presidio from the top of this cemetery.

The second cemetery I'd recommend visiting is Mountain View Cemetery in Oakland. You'll probably want to rent a car to get to this location as it's not so convenient, but this cemetery has the most spectacular cemetery sculpture in the entire Bay Area. This cemetery is where the wealthiest in San Francisco's days gone by were buried and has dramatic sculptures of angels especially. Don't miss Crocker's angel.

There are lots of other great places to shoot in and around San Francisco. Browse some of my collections for some other great spots and feel free to comment if you have questions on other spots to shoot.

Bonus links:

Best Chinese Food in San Francisco: Henry's Hunan (Downtown/Chinatown)

Best Mexican Food in San Francisco: La Taqueria (Mission District)

Best Reasonably Priced Sushi: Godzilla Sushi (Pacific Heights)

Best Expensive Sushi: Sushi Ran (Sausalito)

Best Breakfast Spot in San Francisco: Sears Fine Food (Union Square)

Best Used CD Store in San Francisco: Amoeba (Haight)

Best Wine Store: K&L Wines (South of Market)

Best Wine Bar: Ferry Plaza Wine Merchant (Ferry Building)

Best Camera/Photo Store: None. They all are pretty much overpriced. Save yourself some money and make sure to buy from B&H ahead of your trip.


Tags: san francisco shoot best bridge ]]> Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:47:00 -0500 tag:croncast.com,3658 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/readwriteweb/~3/233326533/cnn_to_launch_completely_user.php Shared item We've been writing a lot about the trend of media companies paying more attention to citizen journalism and amateur reporting tools. Perhaps no mainstream media outlet has done more to push citizen journalism into the spotlight over the past year then CNN. In August 2006, they launched the user generated content-focused i-Report feature on their web site, which has since attracted over 100,000 submissions from users, and last summer they held the first of two CNN-YouTube presidential debates, in which questions were submitted via YouTube. CNN is about to take their participation in amateur news reporting a big step forward with the planned launch of iReport.com, an entire portal dedicated to completely user generated news content.

While CNN's i-Report section has grown in popularity in recent months -- it took in 10,000 submissions in January alone... the site's editors have only displayed about 10 percent of those submissions, which are vetted for content and accuracy.

The new site, according to Mediaweek who got an advanced look at the site, will be completely open in terms of what users can upload. Users will be in charge of deciding what constitutes news, and which submissions should be removed from the site. "The community will decide what the news is," CNN News EVP Susan Grant told Mediaweek. "We are not going to discourage or encourage anything -- iReport will be completely unvetted." (Though CNN will monitor the site for inappropriate content.)

Mediaweek says that the new site will look and feel a lot like YouTube and will also feature the usual community features, such as the ability to rate and discuss videos, and embed them on other pages.

CNN recently paid $750,000 for the domain names "ireport.com" and "i-report.com," so this is clearly something they are serious about. And they should be. As we've noted in the past, citizen journalism is fast growing in importance. The only way to keep up with a shrinking news cycle, is to have distributed reporting capable of capturing breaking news as it happens. Often times, the people best suited to report breaking news are amateurs. CNN saw that happen with last year's California wild fires, when much of their most compelling footage came in via i-Report.

"The real contribution of citizen journalists in a story like this, where whole areas of land are closed off and the fields of greatest danger keep shifting, is in having more eyes on the ground," Thomas Hollihan, a professor of media at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California, told the Baltimore Sun. "Citizen journalists are swapping information back and forth - reporting where the flames are now headed or showing images on their cell phones of the fire. And with so much happening so quickly, that kind of information can be really powerful - if it is accurate."

Accuracy is a potential concern for CNN, who have had editors vetting users submissions before allowing them on the web. CNN's Susan Grant said the network will be clear about labeling the new iReport site as a "post-moderated site" (i.e., moderated after posting, rather than before) and that the views put forth in videos uploaded to the site don't necessarily reflect those of CNN.

But accuracy concerns aside, not embracing citizen journalists, or at the very least their tools and methods, seems to be something that the mainstream media can't afford to do. As Scott Karp says, "The news business -- and the journalism it supports -- can no longer afford to wait for innovation to happen in due time. It needs to happen NOW."

Tags: cnn site news citizen report ]]>We've been writing a lot about the trend of media companies paying more attention to citizen journalism and amateur reporting tools. Perhaps no mainstream media outlet has done more to push citizen journalism into the spotlight over the past year then CNN. In August 2006, they launched the user generated content-focused i-Report feature on their web site, which has since attracted over 100,000 submissions from users, and last summer they held the first of two CNN-YouTube presidential debates, in which questions were submitted via YouTube. CNN is about to take their participation in amateur news reporting a big step forward with the planned launch of iReport.com, an entire portal dedicated to completely user generated news content.

While CNN's i-Report section has grown in popularity in recent months -- it took in 10,000 submissions in January alone... the site's editors have only displayed about 10 percent of those submissions, which are vetted for content and accuracy.

The new site, according to Mediaweek who got an advanced look at the site, will be completely open in terms of what users can upload. Users will be in charge of deciding what constitutes news, and which submissions should be removed from the site. "The community will decide what the news is," CNN News EVP Susan Grant told Mediaweek. "We are not going to discourage or encourage anything -- iReport will be completely unvetted." (Though CNN will monitor the site for inappropriate content.)

Mediaweek says that the new site will look and feel a lot like YouTube and will also feature the usual community features, such as the ability to rate and discuss videos, and embed them on other pages.

CNN recently paid $750,000 for the domain names "ireport.com" and "i-report.com," so this is clearly something they are serious about. And they should be. As we've noted in the past, citizen journalism is fast growing in importance. The only way to keep up with a shrinking news cycle, is to have distributed reporting capable of capturing breaking news as it happens. Often times, the people best suited to report breaking news are amateurs. CNN saw that happen with last year's California wild fires, when much of their most compelling footage came in via i-Report.

"The real contribution of citizen journalists in a story like this, where whole areas of land are closed off and the fields of greatest danger keep shifting, is in having more eyes on the ground," Thomas Hollihan, a professor of media at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California, told the Baltimore Sun. "Citizen journalists are swapping information back and forth - reporting where the flames are now headed or showing images on their cell phones of the fire. And with so much happening so quickly, that kind of information can be really powerful - if it is accurate."

Accuracy is a potential concern for CNN, who have had editors vetting users submissions before allowing them on the web. CNN's Susan Grant said the network will be clear about labeling the new iReport site as a "post-moderated site" (i.e., moderated after posting, rather than before) and that the views put forth in videos uploaded to the site don't necessarily reflect those of CNN.

But accuracy concerns aside, not embracing citizen journalists, or at the very least their tools and methods, seems to be something that the mainstream media can't afford to do. As Scott Karp says, "The news business -- and the journalism it supports -- can no longer afford to wait for innovation to happen in due time. It needs to happen NOW."

Tags: cnn site news citizen report ]]> Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:43:09 -0500 tag:croncast.com,3505 http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/pmarca/~3/227737846/inaugurating-th.html Shared item

[With apologies in advance to Martin Nisenholtz, who I believe is genuinely fighting the good fight, and who will no doubt end up with a great job at some fine Internet company.]

The hiring of Bill Kristol was the last straw.

I can't take it anymore.

I hereby inaugurate my New York Times Deathwatch, which will continue until the last Sulzberger has left the building.

Recent dispatches that are fit to print:

Leading the way [in terrible end-of-year news from the newspaper industry] was The New York Times Company, where total [quarterly] revenues fell 1.7% to $865.8 million, due mostly to a 4.1% drop in ad revenues... Advertising revenues at the news media group in particular fell 5.6%.

Source: Media Daily News.

Actually, that's being perhaps overly fair, since it takes into account an extra week last year. The straight year over year performance was:

[F]ourth-quarter revenue totaled $865.8 million, down 7.1% from $931.5 million a year earlier. The decline included a 9.1% drop in advertising revenue and a 4% fall in circulation revenue... [T]he company had an extra week in the final quarter of 2006, which boosted the year-earlier quarter's revenue by $50.8 million and its pretax income by $14.3 million.

Yes, we are dealing with a business where missing a single week means the difference between revenue falling 1.7% and 7.1%, and advertising revenue falling 4.1% and 9.1%. Go figure.

Source: Forbes.

Now, normally, beating up on someone like this isn't very much fun. But we are talking about a profession that specializes in passing judgment, often snide, on everyone else. And so, onward...

Turns out that December 2007 was particularly bad, and things may be getting even worse:

Separately, the [New York Times] reported that December ad revenue dropped 25.2%. Excluding an additional week in December 2006, ad revenue declined 12% for the month.

...[W]eakness across several national [advertising] categories including health care, books, technology products and transportation hampered results in the month. Classified ads, the traditional lifeblood of newspapers, saw steep declines in help-wanted, real estate and automotive sales. [Craig, you bad bad boy...]

"To date in January, the percentage decline in advertising revenue is trending similar to that of December..." said Janet Robinson, chief executive of New York Times...

As they say, sometimes it's darkest right before it goes pitch black.

Source: Marketwatch.

How are the company's other papers doing?

The [New York Times-owned] Boston Globe will soon announce cutbacks at the newspaper, including hundreds of layoffs, and an increase in the per copy price of the paper to 75 cents as of Feb. 1...

The Globe saw a nearly 7 percent decrease from 386,417 to 360,695 in its daily circulation between Sept. 2006 and Sept. 2007, according to numbers released in November by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. That report showed the paper's Sunday circulation down about 6.5 percent...

When you have an obsolete, inconvenient physical product that nobody wants in an era of universal online access, the appropriate strategy is clearly to raise the price.

Source: Metro Boston, which amusingly itself is 49 percent owned by the Boston Globe, which is owned by the New York Times.

How about revenue at the Globe?

At the New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, ad revenue fell nearly 16%. Circulation revenue fell 7%.

Source: Marketwatch.

How about the company's smaller newspapers?

The company's regional-media group, including papers in medium-sized markets such as Wilmington, N.C., and Santa Rosa, Calif., saw ad revenue decline almost 17%, while circulation fell 7.4%.

Source: