In the past we’ve posted communications whenever someone has threatened to sue us. I think it’s entertaining, and it hopefully makes people think twice before firing up the legal machine with ridiculous claims. So when YouTube sent us a cease and desist letter, I posted it. And when that asshole Shannon Terry threatened to sue us out of existence, I posted that too.
Now the most ridiculous claim yet. Richard Figueroa, who claims to have the rights to this image of Ashton Kutcher, is demanding that we pay him $150,000 immediately or else he’ll sue us for $1.5 million.
Hi Michael, My name is Richard Figueroa and I am contacting you on behalf of the image you are using of Ashton Kutcher that Beth Boldt had taken. Beth is upset that your company has been using his image to generate traffic and revenue to your company without her permission.We are asking that you pay Beth $150,000,00 for the image that you have been using to generate business. If you choose not to settle this bill now we will ask for $1,500,000 in damages in loss of income form the image you have been borrowing for creating traffic to your website with here picture.if you google Beth Boldt you will get an idea of who she is in the modeling and entertainment industry.We would like to settle this quietly without the media getting involved however if you choose not to agree on these terms we will file a lawsuit against your company for copyright violation and we all know how that’s going to turn out since she’s the photographer of the image you are using.
So here is her invoice: Please make check out to Beth Boldt in the amount of ($150,000,00) send it to
[deleted contact information]
And after payment is made you may not use the image of Ashton anymore unless you want to negotiate a contract.
Thank you
Richard Figueroa
BethBoldt
Here’s the problem: we never used that image of Ashton Kutcher on any of our websites. The one image we did use (in this post) was supplied by Ooma (Kutcher is the creative director for Ooma), and Ooma says they own that image.
The problem turns out to be that if you do a search on Google (or “the Google” as Figueroa calls it), the image in question appears at the top of the results and is linked to TechCrunch. Why? Well we did some digging and it turns out that someone linked to the image in a comment to one of our posts.
I explained all of this to Figueroa on the phone but he insisted that Google bought us and that we need to remove the image from Google immediately. Sadly, Google has not acquired us, and I have no easy method for removing images from Google’s servers.
Normally I’d just let something like this drop since this guy doesn’t understand anything about copyright law or the Internet, but he has also been calling and emailing our advertisers and threatening to sue them, too (listen to the voicemail below). They are understandably concerned, and Heather and I now have to spend time today calming everyone down.
Don’t be this guy.
The voicemail below is to one of our advertisers. Listen to a second one, sent to Ooma, here.
Update: Starting at comment #79 below it looks like Richard weighs in with a number of comments. In comment no. 113 he tried to post my phone number and get people to call me and complain but I just deleted it.
Update 2: Richard has been calling me this evening saying people are crank calling him and that he will take “legal activation” against everyone who calls him. I’ve removed the phone number above. Please stop calling him because he just calls me afterwards.
Update 3: So the link to TechCrunch on Google’s search results is gone and the picture now links to Yahoo Answers. Richard still isn’t happy and is demanding I link that search result to him. I’m just speechless.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Being Stupid And Litigious Is No Way To Go Through Life
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
France Telecom’s Orange to adopt OpenID
Yesterday at the Digital ID conference in San Francisco, Orange, one of the major mobile operator and ISP with more than 40 million subscribers announced they would adopt the OpenID registration/identification standard. There was already a clear trend from big internet properties to adopt (Digg, Technorati Microsoft and AOL but also Yahoo and WikiPedia already announced that).
But this is the first time that a major TelCo is taking that step. There is already an implementation of OpenID on the French portal available at openid.orange.fr . Orange presents also on the page a list of OpenID providers.
This is a good news for OpenID standard. The question remaining concerns the pace of adoption by the users. I could not find the access to the openID page by navigating from the homepage of the portal. It will probably pushed at later stage after the first tests. I also found the explanation not simple enough to understand for a new user (most of them are not early adopters) and Orange should probably think about a a short visual/demo to explain simply the benefits of such a service. An international roll out will probably come out soon.
Terabitz To Expand Beyond Home Searches Today
Palo Alto-based Terabitz launched in July 2007 as a sort of Netvibes/Pageflakes for people searching for real estate.
A search on the site pulls up a basic Google map of the area and nothing else. But users can then drag in modules to add information - local foreclosures, recent sales, listed homes, schools, even fast food restaurants. Every module that is added by a user also adds the appropriate information to the map as well. It’s a very convenient way to get a feel for the neighborhood.
The original idea for the company came from seventeen year old Kamran Munshi, who is now a freshman at Cornell. His father, Ashfaq, ran with the idea and raised $10 million in funding. The company has 42 employees (12 in the U.S., 30 in India).
Later today the company is launching a new feature - the ability to create a map with various modules included and then embed it on another website. So any site that wants to add a Google generated map that includes, say, local businesses and restaurants (a hotel, for example) can now do so easily. The tool is free, but will be branded with Terabitz.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Facebook Takes Further Steps To Curb User Abuse; Change In How Applications Are Measured
Last week Facebook updated their developer platform to restrict some of the more egregious abuses of users by application developers - bait and switch profile advertisements and friend spamming.
Today they announced additional changes. And Facebook also announced that they are changing the way applications are measured to show user engagement instead of just how many users have added an application.
Defending Users Against Abuse
Today they’ve updated the platform again to further restrict questionable behavior. In a blog post on the Facebook developers site, Dave Morin outlines the new rules and says “With the upcoming changes, we hope to shift the balance more in favor of good apps.”
It is now impossible for applications to hide things from profile owners. Previously, applications were showing ads to friends without the owner seeing the ad when looking at his/her own profile.
Facebook has also taken steps to limit invitations sent to friends, and have stopped applications from sending emails to users who’ve added it.
Application Metrics
Morin also says Facebook is going to start giving users more information on which applications are actually being used, as opposed to simply added and forgotten:
This week you’ll see us shift our application directory metrics to a focus on user engagement. This will help inform users as they make decisions on which applications to add as well as shift developer focus to engagement rather than total users. More specifics will be available as we roll out these changes this coming week.
This is a good change. Newer applications with fewer users will now have a way to move up on the charts if users are really engaged with the application. We’ll have to wait and see exactly how they plan on measuring engagement, but overall this is good news for the lesser known but “good” applications that are currently hard to find.
The Quickly Evolving Platform
Facebook is still a young platform, and it’s good that they are taking steps to reduce abuse of the user base. But they don’t seem to be taking any remedial action against past abusers, meaning those applications get to keep the millions of users they’ve racked up using questionable practices.
Since application developers aren’t penalized for finding the weaknesses in the Facebook platform, expect them (and their venture dollars) to continue to focus on finding the next hole to exploit. If Facebook were to slap a few of the worst offenders on the wrist, perhaps others would lose the incentive to engage in bad behavior.
Also, the changes are very cumbersome for even the non-abusers. For example, applications will now need to find another way to contact users since email is out. That creates uncertainty, and reduces the incentive for the good guys to innovate since they don’t know if functionality will disappear.
At the end of the day, it may take more to police this ecosystem than occasional band aids to the platform to stop abuse as it appears. A more subjective reward and punishment system may eventually evolve where Facebook takes an active role in policing the behavior of application developers. It may or may not be a good thing, but it is almost certainly inevitable.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
34 More Ways to Build Your Own Social Network
A few weeks ago we posted 9 Ways to Build Your Own Social Network, a review of several hosted, do-it-yourself white label social networking solutions. Conspicuously missing from that round-up were many additional companies that specialize in the creation of social networks. These companies were intentionally overlooked in the first post because we wanted to focus on self-service websites. In this second post, we cover these remaining companies, all of which offer either made-to-order solutions or downloadable software.
When reviewing Ning
Detailed information about the companies is presented in the interactive chart to the right, which features additional information in popups and the ability to select only particular companies for comparison.
The following companies are included in the chart: Affinity Circles
Not included are Dave Networks
Your initial reaction may be “wow, this market sure looks overcrowded.” In the longer run, competitive pricing may force many of these companies to drop out of the business. However, I was surprised to hear several of them say that current demand for social networking services is overwhelmingly high. One of the representatives I spoke with half-kiddingly said that he did not actually want TechCrunch coverage of his company because he already has to turn down multiple project requests per week. It will be interesting to see over the next few years whether this demand further intensifies as potential customers realize the value of niche social networks, or whether it slackens as people get over the hype surrounding this aspect of Web 2.0.
Many of these companies are targeting large, well-established organizations with deep pockets. Scan the chart and you will see big-name media companies, educational institutions, and corporations such as Reuters
The companies in this round-up have some advantages over those in the first round-up when it comes to providing for well-established organizations. First, these companies can protect and enhance their clients’ brands by delivering highly-tailored social network components that integrate seamlessly into existing websites. This is especially true for the subset of social networking companies that provide made-to-order solutions rather than downloadable packages. However, even downloadable software can (at least theoretically) be retooled by the clients’ developers to match an existing look and feel.
Secondly, many of these companies provide greater ownership of social network data and/or software. While a groupie running a Smashing Pumpkins fan network on Ning does not care that the network’s data is locked up in Ning’s system, Wells Fargo and Ernst & Young prefer to keep their communication systems much closer to the vest. Corporations often need to know that their data is safe and trackable for both dependability and legal reasons. Social network ownership is often ensured by putting the software and data management entirely on the client’s servers, or as is the case with Blogtronix, delivering the hardware and software together as an appliance, if demanded. However, even the hosted solutions among these companies eagerly emphasize that they respect their clients’ ultimate ownership of data on their servers.
Thirdly, several of these companies claim to develop closer, longer-lasting relationships with their clients. They provide information sessions at the beginning of their relationships, collaborate during the design process, and may even help market the social networks and provide ongoing content moderation support.
Fourthly, these companies can be very flexible when it comes to how much of the work their clients want to take on themselves. While they all provide complete social networking packages, many also support the widgetization of their features so clients can embed social networking functionality in regular pages. Some, such as Crowd Factory, also allow for the client to take complete responsibility for front-end programming and use an API to plug into a full-service back-end.
While all of these companies provide social networking functionality, they differentiate themselves in several ways. AlstraSoft, Blogtronix, Boonex, Broadband Mechanics, DZOIC, phpFox, PHPizabi, Telligent, Web Scribble Solutions, and Webligo form the minority that provide non-hosted solutions (although Blogtronix and Broadband Mechanics provide software as a service, or SaaS, solutions as well, and others might be willing to locally install their traditionally hosted platforms).
Some of them, such as Crowd Factory, Prospero, and Neighborhood America mostly concentrate on serving media companies. Affinity Circles provides job-oriented social networking solutions for alumni networks and trade associations. SelectMinds exclusively builds private networks for the employees of corporations. And Kwiqq aims to become a long-standing technology partner with the companies it serves.
A few provide unique features not found in your average social network. Leverage and introNetworks both have strikingly similar visualization features that enable network members to easily locate other members who share their backgrounds and interests. DZOIC’s Handshakes Professional product allows members to save their searches and get notified when new members match search criteria. ThePort, which has been around since 1999 and focuses on creating niche communities, differentiates itself by integrating its social networks with its own news aggregation and start page services.
Speaking of older companies, the players in this market also vary significantly in age (at least when considered in light of other Web 2.0 companies). The oldest of the group, Web Crossing, was founded in 1986, and others were originally born as Web 1.0 companies: LiveWorld in 1996, and Neighborhood America and Sparta Social Networks in 1999, for example. As representatives for Prospero (founded in 2000) attest, these older companies have needed to changed their focus in the last couple of years to accommodate a new preference for “me” technologies over “we” technologies. However, these companies also claim that their experience, business relationships, and internal structure have prepared them well for this transition and equipped them to deliver mature products.
Check out the chart for more detailed information about these companies. If you have personally dealt with any of these companies, please share your experience in the comments below.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Woods survives minor scare to win 13th major title
By SAM WEINMAN TULSA, Okla. - In the final moments of another triumphant week, everything had returned to balance in Tiger Woods' world.
In Tulsa, Tiger Nabs 13th Major
Woods's PGA Victory, Like in 1999, May Be Start of Title Binge
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Leveraging Facebook To Compete With eBay Won’t Work
Facebook users can use the application to sell thing directly to others via their Facebook profile. Buy.com charges a flat 5% commission on completed sales (the seller will also have to pay Paypal or other payment fees. The application says “thanks to Garage Sale, Facebook users don’t have to leave their profile page to advertise and sell personal goods.”
There are other Facebook applications doing nearly the exact same thing. Mosoma
There is an argument that a closed network is a better way to sell items because the people who view the listing know you and, presumably, trust you. That gets you over a big hurdle - eBay’s feedback system provides information on the buyer and seller which helps them get comfortable transacting. Without that feedback system to encourage sales, it’s important that something else takes its place. In the case of Garage Sale and Mosoma, user familiarity is the key.
But in practice this doesn’t work so well. Sellers are looking for a big base of buyers to sell into to leverage the network effect. eBay obviously does an excellent job of this. Otherwise there is no reason they would command a long term leadership position with their high fees. Buyers and sellers put up with the fees because it is the place to go to conduct p2p transactions. The network effect perpetuates their success and newcomers have a very difficult time gaining market share.
With Garage Sale and Mosoma, sellers can’t access this large pool of buyers because only their friends will see the listings. And sellers who are looking for a specific item are still likely to hop on over to eBay and do a quick search. They’ll only buy from friends if they serendipitously happen to catch site of an item in a friend’s news feed that they were already looking for.
Microsoft experimented in this area in late 2005/early 2006 with their Live Expo
Closed networks work for some things, but they don’t seem to work for trading physical goods. My bet is that Garage Sale and Mosoma fall short of expectations, and that eBay is looking on with, at best, bemused interest.
