Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

To social graph, or not to social graph: THAT is the question?

But two weeks ago, Fred Wilson devoted an A VC post to ”what’s up” with the term “social graph,” citing fellow Twitterers:

“Why can’t Facebook people call it a social network? How exactly is a database of people and who they know a graph?”

Yesterday, however, Wilson confessed he got “social graph” religion, crediting his commenters for “educating” him; Did he change camps too soon, though? After all, Dave Winer tells us now that talk of the “social graph” is monkey worthy talk.

Winer laments “if you don’t want to sound like an idiot, call a social graph a social network.” WHO sounds like an idiot, exactly, in Winer’s Scripting world? A “well respected developer” aka Brad Fitzpatrick? Fred Wilson? Marc Canter? The Scobleizer?

Winer also says Mark Zuckerberg’s “Facebook originated the term.”

Did Facebook “originate” the term “social graph”? Regardless, Zuckerberg and company certainly lay public competitive claim to it, at the expense of the term “social network.”

The command and control Facebook PR juggernaut even PROHIBITS Facebook Platform developers from using the term “social networking site” in any mention of Facebook or the Facebook Platform. Penalty for non-compliance with Facebook PR anti-social network edicts? Disabling of developers’ Facebook Platform Application!

WHY can’t “Facebook people call it a social network” as Wilson wonders? Actually, THEY DO, when they are not playing anti-MySpace PR games!

I exposed the Facebook Social Network vs. Social Graph hypocricy last month, READ: Mark Zuckerberg Maps U.S.Patent for Facebook SOCIAL NETWORK Engine.

YES! The MySpace social network hating, vaunted “creator” of the world famous, prospective multi-billion dollar “social graph” is betting his future on social networking!

Zuckerberg is laying claim to an “invention” relating to “social networking.”

What Facebook “social graph” then? WHAT trusted Facebook leadership, would be an even better question, for its 30 milion plus members to pose.

ALSO: NO Google Deathblow to Facebook on November 5 and Got Ethics? Google Rats Lured by TechCrunch Trap and The Social Graph Circa 2004, in Europe

PLUS: FeedBurner VC Smart Money on the Cheap: $4 CPM and Why Twitter is Risky Business

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Big, bad corporate villian Viacom against innocent “friends and family” video guy, with good corporate friend YouTube stuck in the middle? NO.

Contrary to conventional Viacom is always the bad guy wisdom, the “fair use” game is not a clear cut one, no matter the circumstances. MOREOVER, everyone is entitled to play along, INCLUDING VIACOM.

While the blogosphere troops rally in typical lock-step fashion to restate Chris Knight’s case against Vicaom’s purported YouTube “chutzpah” against his alleged copyright infringement at YouTube, Viacom has stated why its fair use case is a fair one.

(Knight turns to a “Yiddish word,” chutzpah,” to accuse Viacom of “unbelievable gall or audiacity;” Perhaps that is why he deems himself to be a “renegade Christian thinker.”)

Despite Knight’s drama, though, and the blogosphere’s glee in believing it has caught Viacom with its hypocritical copyright pants down, Viacom has thrown cold (boring) water on the Knight plea for fair use fairness.

Knight’s “hometown paper,” News & Record, cites Viacom on the matter:

What’s the difference between VH1 using Knight’s commercial and Knight using VH1’s clip?

“The VH1 depiction was part commentary and edited,” said Jeremy Zweig, Viacom. But Knight’s version, an unedited copy, was illegal. “If he had transformed the clip in some way it would’ve been helpful,” Zweig said, “Or if he just linked to our Web site, that would be appropriate.”

YES, the fair use game is open to all players, even corporate ones.

Amanda Martin, a Raleigh attorney and First Amendment “expert,” is also cited:

There’s no clear-cut rule on what is and isn’t fair use of other people’s works in productions, but there are several considerations.

Republication with commentary and editing — such as VH1’s work — seems OK, she said, while Knight’s verbatim rebroadcast of the show doesn’t appear to be protected by law.

Is Knight the one with the YouTube chutzpah after all? Perhaps, for creating a public drama out of a shaky legal argument.

READ MORE FAIR USE INSIDER CHATTER:  YouTube License To Steal, and Humiliate: ‘Fair Use IS a Bitch’ AND Viacom, NBC Fight For Paid Content Rights

ALSO: Pro Video Land Grab: DailyMotion AND YouTube Turn Into Google Video and Advertising Evil Honors: IntelliTXT, Kontera, Google CPA Ads

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Henry Blodget continues to want to amuse himself with a Mary Meeker gotcha game, despite the fact that HE is the one that was GOT, by the SEC.

Perhaps the fact that Meeker is still welcome on Wall Street, while Blodget is persona non grata, is why he won’t stop gleefully mocking Meeker at his new blog venture, co-founded by fellow Internet boom veteran Kevin Ryan, of DoubleClick (but not ShopWiki) fame.

Blodget wants to get to the bottom of Meeker’s math. BUT, what about Blodget’s math. He apparently knows how to count to $4 million, the amount he was asked to cough up to settle SEC claims of “alleged” securities valuations conduct unbecoming, as I reported yesterday: Henry Blodget: Mary Meeker Pulls a Blodget on Google

AMZN, anyone, trading now at $79 (see update on AMZN below).

How DID Blodget derive HIS AMZN valuations? A secret theorem, perhaps, courtsey of Mark Poyser, Osprey Cartoons.

UPDATE: You Mon Tsang advises there just may be something to the theorem: He indicates there were two stock splits in 1999–3 for 1, and 2 for 1–so 6 X $79 = $474.

Long term investing is a virtue; Nevertheless, as I cited earlier, in the meantime: “millions of investors paid for the advice (of Blodget AND Meeker) with their life savings.”

ALSO: New York Times to New Media: WHO Doesn’t Understand How the Internet Works? and Sex Witch Hunt: YAY! We’re All GPS Stalkers Now

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Henry Blodget to Mary Meeker: oh no you didn’t! Issue a Morgan Stanley research report on a company that was “exaggerated, unwarranted, or lacked a reasonable basis,” as the SEC says I did for Merrill Lynch.

Blodget gleefully skewers Internet bubble cohort Meeker for being too “bullish” on Google due to math errors, although in admonishing Meeker’s calculations, Blodget posted some wrong numbers of his own. Of course, in the Blodget view of the world, HIS wrong numbers are merely “typos,” Mary, though, quite contrary.

Blodget is well versed in spinning himself out of valuation binds, and seeking to rewrite Internet history, as I analyze in a skewer of my own: Henry Blodget Has Internet Boom Lessons For NBC

It is obviously ironic that Blodget would blow a multi-billion dollar Internet bubble over valuation whistle on fellow bubble blower Meeker, as Blodget had the SEC whistle blown on him for analyst conduct unbecoming.

Litigation Release No. 18115 / April 28, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Henry M. Blodget, 03 CV 2947 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y.)

SEC SUES MERRILL LYNCH AND HENRY M. BLODGET FOR RESEARCH ANALYST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FIRM AND BLODGET TO SETTLE WITH SEC, NASD, AND NYSE

The Commission’s Complaints allege that:

Blodget aided and abetted Merrill Lynch’s fraudulent research on GoTo.com. Further, Merrill Lynch and Blodget published research on five other companies [24/7 Media, Inc.; LifeMinders, Inc.; Homestore.com, Inc.; Excite@Home; and Internet Capital Group, Inc.] that were not based on principles of fair dealing and good faith and did not provide a sound basis for evaluating facts, contained exaggerated or unwarranted claims, and/or contained opinions for which there was no reasonable basis.

In the words of Tracy Pride Stoneman, securities lawyer, on Blodget, Meeker and Internet booms:

With Henry Blodget and Mary Meeker pushing tech and Jack Grubman pumping telecom to their brokers and the investing public, it is not happenstance that millions of investors ended up concentrated in volatile, speculative securities. The sad reality is that millions of investors not only paid for this advice in the form of commissions and fees, but they also paid for it with their life savings.

The SEC on Blodget’s penalties:

In his settlement, Blodget has agreed to pay $2 million in penalties and an additional $2 million disgorgement, all of which will be placed into a distribution fund for the benefit of customers of Merrill Lynch. In the SEC action, Blodget also has agreed to a federal court order that will enjoin him from future violations of the federal securities laws and NASD and NYSE rules. Blodget also has agreed to be barred from associating with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser.

Beware Blodget AND Meeker (their math, of course).

ALSO: GPhone Frenzy and Google’s New Risk: Corporate Communication Snafus

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Why are Viacom and NBC Universal seeking to make their DMCA opinions known to Judge Howard Lloyd in the matter of IO Group v. Veoh Networks via a “amici curiae” brief? Because the outcome ”may have an impact on the numerous lawsuits pending against YouTube, Grouper, Bolt, and other Internet Websites that operate similarly to Veoh.”

Viacom has a $1 billion lawsuit in progress against Google’s YouTube for “massive copyright infringement.” NBC has been a good cop, bad cop Google tease; NBC enjoys the fruits of YouTube promotion, while taking every opportunity to attack its DMCA fueled business model, without intitiating a direct lawsuit on its own behalf, however.

Viacom and NBC assert they “have an interest in “the development of the law of intellectual property generally, and particularly with respect ot the DMCA and its application to services such as Veoh”:

Viacom and NBC have a “direct, specific, and tangible interest” in:

Whether Veoh’s activities, and those of Internet Websites that operate in a manner similar to Veoh, are entitled to the protections of the “safe harbor” of Section 513(c) of the DMCA.

They are not, as Viacom and NBC seek to prove:

Many of Viacom’s and NBCU’s most valuable copyrighted works have been copied, performed, and disseminated without authorization by video-sharing Websites such as Veoh, YouTube and others. Viacom and NBCU have a strong interest in preserving the strength and viability of all of their legal rights and remedies in response to such conduct.

In WikiYou to Aaron Cohen: ‘YOU Screwed Over BOLT! Not once but twice!’ I cite my interview with Cohen in Februrary when he believed he could save Bolt from disintegrating due to copyright infringement liability: “2007 will be the year in which the Internet community and traditional copyright holders find economic partnerships that are mutually beneficial,” he told me.

Cohen was unable to find such financial harmony for Bolt, after all; His turnaround vision unraveled. Bolt.com is history. Bolt has “ceased” operations and its creditors are being redirected to a third party advisor of  “secured and unsecured creditors.”

All online video sharing sites fueled by no need to pay for content, DMCA driven business models, risk the same fate as Bolt, even YouTube.

ALSO: Google Demands NBC Universal Spread YouTube Fair Use Gospel

PLUS: How Google Abuses DMCA, NOT Universal Music: Sorry EFF & ‘Mom’ and Zuckerberg Message: Facebook Resistance Futile, Billions of Stubborn Email Accounts Targeted

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Facebook rules? Now, more than ever. Mark Zuckerberg even has Google at Facebook attention.

DIGG TOO.

Remember when Digg’s Kevin Rose and Jay Adelson promised to “go down fighting” instead of “bowing down to a bigger company”?

“If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying” Rose boasted in defending Digg’s right to host HD-DVD encryption key code. His infamous (but belated) “Digg This: 09-f9-11-02…blog battle cry for digging democracy still stands.

Was Rose’s InDiggnation but a one time thing though? “We won’t delete stories containg the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be,” were Rose’s leaked code must be free fighting words in May. 

In face of Facebook’s legal threats regarding its leaked code, however, Digg has no such free the code stance.

Gone is Digg’s democracy of news defiance, in favor of Facebook’s defiant legal threats.

Facebook Legal to Digg re Digger submissions at Digg “Facebook source code leaked, Actual PHP code”:

If these materials are not expeditiously removed, we reserve the right to pursue all legal remedies available to us, including seeking damages and injunctive relief.

Digg response to Facebook? Compliance.

No Digg news democracy problem? Digg is even selling ads against its capitulation announcement! Digg ads (still) by Google, a fellow Facebook capitualtor.

Google, of course, is an old hand at firing off DMCA takedown notices, a skill perfected at its YouTube no need to pay for the copyright content of others “business.”

Google’s Blogger, the Google property where Facebook’s not so secure code was proudly displayed, has a well honed “Digital Millenium Copyright Act” do’s and don’ts in place and “Facebook (not so coding) Secrets” has gotten the don’t treatment: The Facebook code is gone.

Facebook is trying to clean the Web of its dirty little coding secrets.

When will Facebook really save face though and come clean on why big bad “bugs” are wreaking havoc at the not so safe Zuckerberg haven?

SEE Zuckerberg Insecurity Exposed: A Facebook Bug Attacks Again

ALSO: USA Today Anti Social Media? Gannett CEO Warns Staffers of Blogger Speculation

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN