AP chides reporters for tweeting about Occupy news before the news hits the wire bit.ly/rTpLzE So shouldn’t the wire speed up?!

– The New York Times’ (and former Facebook and Twitter product guy) Brian Stelter, in response to an email by Associated Press managing editor Lou Ferrara, reprimanding reporters for breaking news on Twitter before it hit the wire

Now it looks as if News.me is just about ready for public consumption. I’m basing that observation on a new Web site that spells out, in great detail, how the app is supposed to work, and which instructs users to head to iTunes to download the app.

As I’m typing this, News.me still isn’t available in the app store. So it’s possible that the new web page is simply a new web page. Perhaps it’s just an exercise in positive thinking–maybe this will force Apple into approving our app!

[UPDATE: "Our understanding is that News.me is launching tomorrow", says New York Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy; the Times is aware of News.me's plans because it helped develop the project in its early stages (see below). I've asked Bit.ly for comment but haven't heard back yet.]

At a minimum, though, we can learn a lot about what Bit.ly has planned when News.me does launch.

The basics:

• News.me will cost $0.99 a week, or $34.99 a year. It will be available as an iPad app, using Apple’s subscription service, or as an e-mail newsletter.
• News.me will provide users with curated Twitter streams that highlight “the most popular or interesting news stories” that appear in their own Twitter feeds, and from the feeds of other Twitter users they select. The notion is that users can “read over the shoulder” of people they find interesting.
• Bit.ly does the curating, using the data it culls as it shortens billions of shared links on the Web. Since News.me relies on Bit.ly data, it has a natural bias toward publishers that use the service.
• News.me lets users read those stories in a “streamlined reading view,” which will be familiar to anyone who has used apps like Instapaper: easy-to-read black text on a white background–without the ads users see when they read the same stuff on a publisher’s Web page.
• News.me will share some of its revenue with publishers who license their content to the service. But publishers who don’t have News.me deals but do appear on the Web will still see their stuff show up on the service. It just won’t look as nice, and they won’t get paid. And they won’t get the chance to run “additional promotion for publisher products that might be of special interest to News.me users (such as iPad applications).”

You can get a pretty good sense of how the app works by reading TechCrunch’s “exclusive” from February. Or you could just ask many of the people whose work often appears on Techmeme. A whole lot of writers and bloggers–including me–have had a chance to play with News.me for a while.

When News.me finally does go live, potential users will have to debate whether they want to pay a fee to read stuff they can get for free on the Web.

But to me, the most interesting thing about News.me is that it’s an aggregator blessed by some publishers that haven’t always been hospitable to aggregators.

There’s the New York Times, for starters, which handed over the beginnings of the service to Bit.ly in exchange for cash and equity. And the Associated Press, which often butts heads with the Web, has signed on, too.

So have Forbes, and AOL and many of its sub-brands, and a good chunk of the blogosphere–Gawker Media, Business Insider, Gigaom, Mashable, VentureBeat, etc. (I believe–but haven’t confirmed–that neither All Things Digital nor News Corp., which owns the site, have a deal with News.me.)

The Times and the Associated Press also work with Ongo, another aggregation subscription service. But Ongo only uses content from publishers it has deals with.

News.me, though, charges money for a service built using other people’s work–even if those people haven’t signed on.

Which is what the Times has complained about in the past–like last summer, when it forced Apple to pull the Pulse newsreader out of its app store. The AP has engaged in similar fist-shaking aimed at Google and the Internet at large.

Here’s News.me’s defense of its model:

Because News.me generally provides a small subset of a publisher’s content, filtered by user actions and News.me algorithms, it is not a substitute for publishers’ own web sites or iPad applications. And, since it exposes users to content they likely wouldn’t otherwise see, it can broaden the audience and, through related-content links, drive new unique users to publisher web sites.

Which is reasonable enough. Everything on the Web gets shared and sampled; if you’re a publisher trying to build or keep an audience, trying to prevent that is counterproductive.

And News.me’s curated browsing conceit–there’s no search function, and you can’t subscribe to a publication-specific feed–makes it worthless for anyone trying to use it to game publishers. This won’t work as a permanent ad-blocker, or a paywall-jumping aid.

I still won’t be surprised to see some publishers who haven’t signed on rattling their sabers when News.me launches–just like the Times and the AP have in the past. Glad to see they’ve come around.

A panoply of big media giants sent a cease-and-desist letter today to Zite, the Apple iPad news reader app.

The Washington Post, AP, Gannett, Getty Images, Time, Dow Jones and many other media organizations were part of the action, which you can read all about below.

Zite bills itself as a “personalized iPad magazine that gets smarter as you use it.”

Not smart enough, it seems, to avoid copyright complaints from the content creators the app sucks in.

“The Zite application is plainly unlawful,” said the letter to Zite CEO Ali Davar, noting all kinds of copyright violations.

In a phone interview with BoomTown this afternoon, Davar said Zite would comply with the letter by shifting the content from its “reading” mode to a Web one, which points to publisher sites.

“It’s a bummer that they did this, but we expected it,” he said.

In a comment he posted below, Davar also wrote:

“Zite’s goal is to work with publishers, not to be antagonistic. The few publishers that have contacted us regarding the reading mode view we have complied with their requests and simply switched over to web view. We’re talking to publishers right now to find a win-win for them monetarily and to at the same time preserve the great user experience.”

For now, it’s lose-lose, and the letter is a dramatic shot across the bow of all the many news readers now hitting the market in the wake of the popularity of the Apple iPad tablet.

The social media-focused Flipboard and the news-oriented Pulse are two others, both of which have claimed they are working with publishers.

But Pulse wrangled with the New York Times over misuse of its RSS feeds and copyright issues, which has since been settled.

Zite showed up earlier this month, a product of a machine-learning technology start-up called Worio, which is based in Vancouver, Canada.

The aggregator of personalized content, which has $4 million in angel funding, gets its cues from a user’s interests.

Zite’s technology originated at research at the University of British Columbia several years ago.

In an interview with NetworkEffect’s Liz Gannes a few weeks ago, Davar seemed sanguine about publishers.

Wrote Gannes:

The free Zite app imports a user’s Twitter tweets, follows and Google Reader subscriptions, offers lists of pre-made categories, and then solicits feedback and refines over time a list of topics and sources the user is interested in. It features articles based on their popularity, number of shares from a user’s network and topic relevance. (Davar said he thinks a person’s Facebook network data is too heterogeneous to reliably recommend articles, so it’s not included as an option.)

Flipboard itself is likely to add more personalization features; the company bought real-time social discovery technology from Ellerdale and has yet to implement much of it.

Vancouver-based Zite is well-funded, with $4 million from angels and Canadian grants, but it doesn’t have business relationships with publishers. The app lays out pictures and articles, stripping out everything else, including ads. Davar said he doubted this would be a problem. “It would be shortsighted for publishers to think of Zite as us versus them,” he said.

Short-sighted maybe, but legally lethal definitely, as you can see by this cease-and-desist letter, as well as a video from Zite on how its app works:

Letter to Zite _03 30 11_ –

Zite: Personalized Magazine for iPad from zite.com on Vimeo.

(Full disclosure: New Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Oh. That’s right. There are plenty of those already (Rhapsody, Napster, MOG, Rdio, Thumbplay, Spotify, etc.), though none of them have ever really broken through in a mainstream way.

Still, here’s one more: “Music Unlimited” from Sony, which launches in the U.K. and Ireland today, and is supposed to go worldwide next year.

In short, it appears to be like every other subscription service on the market, only much more limited.

That’s because while Sony gives customers access to some six million songs, via cloud-based streaming, it doesn’t allow them to take their music with them, on their phones.

That’s supposed to change eventually, but even when it does, Sony isn’t promising you’ll be able to listen to your tunes on an iPhone. A press release simply says the service “will also become available on a wide range of Sony’s portable devices, as well as on [Google's] Android-based mobile devices.”

And to be clear, it’s not as if Sony is giving this stuff away: It wants the same 10 pounds a month for its ”Premium” plan that Spotify charges its U.K. customers. And again, to beat this into the ground: Spotify lets you listen to whatever you want on your phone–that’s pretty much the whole point of these things.

If you’re still reading, you may want to click through to this AP story, in which Sony tries to argue that this is the kind of thing that will help it compete with Apple again. Personally, I think you’re better off looking at pictures of vintage Walkmans.

Last week Amazon pulled the plug on WikiLeaks by refusing to host the group’s data on its server. But Amazon is now profiting from some of that data, via a Kindle e-book title now available through its U.K. outlet.

Hypocrisy! says the Internet.

Not at all! says Amazon. But it can understand why you might think that.

When reports about the book first surfaced today, the title on Amazon’s site sure made it look as if the e-book were simply a bundled version of WikiLeaks’ documents: “WikiLeaks documents expose US foreign policy conspiracies. All cables with tags from 1- 5000.”

Since then, though, Amazon has added this wording: “[DOES NOT CONTAIN TEXT OF CABLES].”

Adds Amazon PR guy Drew Herdener, via email: “This book contains commentary and analysis regarding recent WikiLeaks disclosures, not the original material disclosed via the WikiLeaks website.”

But that’s still confusing, since the book does indeed contain the text of cables–but in excerpt form, according to the AP.

So let me try to make Amazon’s case for them. Here’s what they might say if they were allowed to speak freely: Sorry about the confusion. But of course it’s okay for us to sell books about WikiLeaks that contain WikiLeaks data we don’t want to host ourselves. There’s a big difference between a data dump and writing that incorporates and comments on that data. See, for instance, the New York Times and every other news outlet that have written about WikiLeaks while using information supplied by WikiLeaks. We sell the Times and other periodicals that report on the topic, and we’re going to sell this book, too.

You’re welcome, Amazon! No need to send a check–I do this kind of thing gratis.

Football crazy Hong Kongers who live in buildings with satellite antennae might’ve tuned in to mainland China’s CCTV, but now that loophole is being sewn up.

In Hong Kong, the subscription service i-Cable won the legal rights to show every match. For those who don’t subscribe to i-Cable, the only local viewing option was a pair of free stations that will air two semifinal games and the final (they also showed the opening game on Friday). Even North Korea has made it easier to watch the World Cup: its state broadcaster has aired footage from three games so far, though not surprisingly it skipped the South Korea and U.S. games. (South Korea’s SBS TV, which has refused to share its feed with the North as it did in 2006, called the latest broadcasts an “act of piracy.”)

So many Hong Kong residents were left with CCTV. But, according to the Associated Press, the Hong Kong government said it asked local buildings with satellite antennae last week to block out CCTV’s World Cup coverage, warning that violators “may attract civil liability” for copyright infringement.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Read the rest of this post on the original site

Associated Press:

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority didn’t point to specific material on YouTube that prompted it to block the site, only citing “growing sacrilegious contents.” The government took action against both Facebook and YouTube after it failed to persuade the sites to remove the “derogatory material,” the regulatory body said in a statement….

The regulatory body said it has blocked more than 450 Internet links containing offensive material, but it is unclear how many of the links were blocked in the past two days. Access to the online encyclopedia site Wikipedia and the photo sharing site Flickr also was restricted Thursday.

YouTube’s comment, via email: “We have received reports that the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority has ordered Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Pakistan to block access to YouTube. We are looking into the matter and are working to ensure that the service is restored as soon as possible.”

The moves are a reaction to “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,” which is a reaction to Muslim protests about an episode of “South Park” last month.

As the AP notes, Pakistan has temporarily blocked access to YouTube before. So have other countries, including Turkey and Thailand. And China has a permanent ban on the site, as well as on Facebook. This doesn’t mean people who live there can’t actually get to the sites–that’s what proxy servers are for–but it does mean it’s harder to do so.

Security company McAfee Wednesday morning issued a software update intended to give the computers that it’s contracted to protect a new list of malicious files to block and delete. Somehow a file that is part of Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows operating system made it on to the list. And when McAfee’s software deleted this file, all hell broke loose.

People all over the country reported that their computers stopped working. Among the victimized organization were a hospital in Rhode Island, police in Kentucky and the National Science Foundation, according to the AP.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

The AP and Google have been negotiating a new licensing agreement to continue the publication of AP content on Google News, but the AP’s efforts to more closely monitor the flow of articles to and through Google and other Web portals have hampered progress. The AP recently reached a new licensing agreement with Yahoo, though people familiar with the matter said the agreement did not include all the protections the AP was seeking.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

FriendFinder, a collection of porn sites and niche social networks, was supposed to start trading this week, after filing for a public offering more than a year ago. But this morning, the company pulled its IPO, citing “market conditions.”

I’m assuming this is not a euphemism for the Dow’s plunge yesterday, but instead a polite way of saying “we couldn’t find buyers.” The AP reports that FriendFinder, which was trying to sell some 20 million shares for $10 to $12, sold 15 million shares at $7 each earlier this week in pre-IPO trading.

Now FriendFinder will have to find some other way to resolve its massive debt issues. The company throws off a lot of cash, but all of that–and more–is getting hoovered up by loan payments. It reported $45 million in income from operations in the first nine months of last year and spent $75.3 million on interest payments in the same period.

Meanwhile, if you’re in the market for a high-end sports car, this may be the time to make the FriendFinder team an offer. The company has yet to sell the Ferrari 360 Modena it bought from its founder for $125,000 in 2006. FriendFinder is carrying the car on its books at $95,000, but I’ll bet it’s willing to negotiate.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

There certainly is a lot of noisy swirl of late around the escalating fight between Google and some traditional media companies over content online.

The loudest voice in this fight has clearly been News Corp. (NWS) kingpin Rupert Murdoch, who seemingly has not met a television interviewer of late he did not regale with tales of Google’s nefariousness.

Part of what he is saying is surely justified–it’s definitely a crisis for the news business.

And in Murdoch’s mind, the blame should largely fall on Google (GOOG), which he believes is profiting from expensive content others have created and that the search giant is not paying for to such a warped and massive degree that it makes a mockery of fair use.

In Silicon Valley style, Google defends itself by saying it sends valuable Web traffic to News Corp. and other sites, so perhaps a hand-written thank-you note is really the proper response.

That missive is definitely not in the mail from Murdoch, who instead has sent a series of poison-pen letters to Google.

Most notable is that he has threatened to “de-index” at least some of his content assets–which are not insubstantial–from the now-inevitable crawlers sent out by the search giant.

These are, of course, vintage tactics from the Global Media Mogul Playbook: Causing a public hubbub and spooking perceived enemies by threatening drastic action and implying dire consequences, while simultaneously dealmaking behind the scenes.

Trying mightily to make the stakes more dramatic, News Corp. has pulled Microsoft (MSFT) into the fray as a possible white knight–if you live long enough, you do see it all–for publishers.

Under this scenario, the software giant would fork over some sum of money to get News Corp. and perhaps other key content companies, such as Associated Press, exclusively and prominently featured on its Bing search site.

The reward, presumably, would be increased searching on Bing for the stuff consumers could now not find on Google.

BoomTown reported earlier this week that, in fact, Microsoft was unlikely to hand over any kind of king’s ransom to publishers.

As I wrote:

While a spate of reports has Microsoft execs girding the globe offering gobs of cash to content companies to block Google and favor its Bing search service, sources close to the situation caution that it is extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege, which many inside the company think will not help it gain much search share.

“While there is a lot of mutual interest, it’s doubtful Microsoft is going to pay to ‘rent’ a corpus of content that it does not own,” said one source close to the situation. “The economics are not there for anyone.”

In other words, this wrestling match is not about whether Google or Microsoft will serve up links to content online, but about how much–or not at all–they are willing to pay for doing so.

So, what’s really happening here? Here are five possibilities to consider, each of which is true in part:

1. Murdoch really means it.

In this scenario, Murdoch and others, like AP’s Tom Curley, truly believe that Google–like that creepy salt-seeking alien from “Star Trek”–is sucking the life out of the media industry by making bank from its news content, but not giving back nearly enough in return.

Of course, a lot of these companies have willingly done distribution deals with Google over the years.

But now they don’t like it because the increasing money being made by Google, even as their revenue has suffered, has developed into a growing problem.

Which is simply this: There is a lot more money to be made in searching for content than in making content.

This realization has to shake content czars like Murdoch to the core, but it is indeed the situation they find themselves in.

Murdoch makes a fair point in that journalism costs money to make and it used to have a solid economic system under it until Google and others on the Web disaggregated it wholly.

Thus, online aggregators become “tapeworms,” as The Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Robert Thomson quipped.

Thomson also, on a recent panel at the Web 2.0 conference, said to Google’s front page head, Marissa Mayer, that she “unintentionally encourages promiscuity.”

Ouch. That remark, which was was quite striking if you were there to hear Thomson say it, said volumes more.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

2. Murdoch really means to create a lot of confusion, in order to shake down Google.

Well, it would not be the first time Murdoch and many others of his ilk have used public sharp elbows and saber-rattling to get what they want.

Except in this case, the algorithm experts over at Google know precisely–down to the tenth decimal–how much linking to News Corp. makes for them.

And it is not much, especially when looking at the vast sea of data Google serves up.

Its money-making is widely dissipated, from searches for vacation information to mapping to car-buying to health. While news-finding definitely is part of the mix, it is not at the center of the Borg.

Ironically–and oddly left out of this debate–it is Yahoo (YHOO) that has a lot of power in this arena, with massive content sites that shoot traffic all over the Web (including to this site).

But, what Google cannot and never can quantify–although I have seen co-founder Larry Page try once or twice–is the impact of public perception on the company, which has slowly morphed from being a benign, brightly-colored digital, librarian-like helper to a scary, answer-to-no-one, evil-doing monster.

The company’s growing influence over what people see and do not see on the Web is palpably frightening to publishers, advertisers and anyone who wants to be digitally discovered.

Bad luck for Google: Creating and then attacking bogeymen is a Murdoch talent, bar none.

3. Murdoch really means to create a lot of confusion, in order to shake down Microsoft.

Also obvious is the full-scale obsession Microsoft has with Google. While the software giant’s execs try to hide it, their panic over the success of Google has been tough on the once dominant tech company, which has struggled in the Internet arena.

Worse still, Google rakes in the dough, while Microsoft, um, does not.

Finally, this year, Microsoft has created–with no small amount of much needed innovation–Bing, a laudable effort that is starting to show some traction.

While Bing still has a very small market share compared with Google–by a factor of seven to one–it definitely has some momentum.

And, after much turmoil, Microsoft finally did a deft and relatively inexpensive deal to join with Yahoo in a search and advertising partnership to give them both more heft, which will surely help matters.

More important, one of the ways Bing has differentiated itself is via product innovations and intense focus on search niches, such as health.

In this topic area, for example, Bing has struck a not-expensive content licensing arrangement with the Mayo Clinic in order to better feature content.

This is smart business and offers consumers something better and different.

But overpaying big media publishers for the same thing, even if they de-indexed Google at the same time, is not smart, unless it is for really niche things like special financial information.

And even then, there are so many other sources of information out there, it would not take Google long to mount a similar offering, even in the face of some kind of OPEC of News consortium.

Even more–how much do consumers love OPECs of any kind? Not much!

Sources at Microsoft agree:

“If it was everyone, that might become interesting. But even that has issues, since Microsoft is not interested in having exclusive news for a temporary period of time by overpaying for it. It’s essentially a marketing expense, and there are a lot better ways to spend that money to win market share than giving it to publishers.”

Finally, Microsoft has been to the Murdoch party before too, having been part of talks to fold News Corp.-owned social networking site MySpace into Yahoo, had Microsoft prevailed in its attempt to acquire it.

Microsoft missed that pricey bullet and might be more inclined to grow Bing the old-fashioned way–via innovation, marketing and product improvements–rather than just using up too much of its energy trying to mess with Google.

4. A deal will be made.

My not-too-surprising prediction is that in the end, News Corp. and others will probably strike some kind of lesser deal with Microsoft–although it will tout the heck out of it–while taking some of its content behind a pay wall and thereby de-indexing it from Google.

More damaging would be if AP, which actually provides the most used news content online, removes its links completely from Google, because–unlike the premium content from other publishers–this is the bread and butter of consumer usage of content.

As to promotional material or links to television shows and movies from publishers like News Corp.? Well, it would seem the most self-destructive form of pique to remove those links from any of the top search engines.

That said, even if it really pissed me off for publishers to do so, I would probably switch to another search engine to find information on “Glee” if forced to. That’s how much I love those singing kids and Jane Lynch!

Finally, Murdoch has also threatened to challenge the fair use doctrine–which allows others to use copyrighted content within limits, as Google and many others do (such as this site).

While some think that is a bridge too far, it might be Murdoch’s best argument of all. Why should Google make a fortune on the content of others, even if only listing it? Doesn’t the sheer volume of what the search giant vacuums up make its reliance on fair use as a defense pretty ridiculous?

You can be sure Murdoch has his many lawyers and lobbyists all over this one, as does Google.

5. The truth is out there.

In perhaps his most strident television interview, with his Sky News Australia service (which you can see below–oh, the irony–on Google’s YouTube), Murdoch said about those who use Google to find News Corp. content:

“They don’t suddenly become loyal readers of our content. We’d rather have fewer people coming to our Web site but paying.”

That really is the honest truth in all this hubbub: Murdoch and other publishers have to find a way to get a some pool of dedicated online readers to pay enough to be able to then provide them with content that will keep them coming back for more.

That’s a business that Google truly cannot help or hinder, really.

And more to the point, it is also a business that Rupert Murdoch does seem to know a thing or two about.

While it might be a dream of publishers–hard hit by the digital tsunami and blaming Google for the crisis–Microsoft is not likely to fork over the big bucks they’d need for exclusive indexing of their content.

“Microsoft isn’t the monopoly guy anymore,” joked one source close to ongoing talks between Microsoft and publishers, especially News Corp. (NWS) and Associated Press. “So, it’s not going to be the bank for publishers.”

While a spate of reports has Microsoft (MSFT) execs girding the globe offering gobs of cash to content companies to block Google (GOOG) and favor its Bing search service, sources close to the situation caution that it is extremely unlikely that the software giant would pay giant sums for that pricey privilege, which many inside the company think will not help it gain much search share.

“While there is a lot of mutual interest, it’s doubtful Microsoft is going to pay to ‘rent’ a corpus of content that it does not own,” said one source close to the situation. “The economics are not there for anyone.”

Nonetheless, that has not stopped AP and News Corp. from aggressive public agitating recently about how their content has been treated online, accusing Google of a wide range of crimes against them and threatening to “de-index” their content from the search giant.

For example, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch–who has been on what seems like a televised campaign against the search giant–accused Google of pilfering stories from his publishing properties.

Presumably, by yanking Google’s access to them and offering them to Microsoft, balance will be restored in The Force.

Except, not so fast, since such a deal would end up costing Microsoft a fortune, which is why several sources said its execs don’t seem to be keen on doing that without getting a lot in return.

The swirl of chatter about it, these sources said, is coming from publishers–who initiated the very early-stage talks–who are keen on playing Microsoft and Google against each other in hopes the warring tech titans will loosen their fat wallets to battle each other.

News Corp., for instance, has been looking for ways to replace the three-year, $900 million (or less) Google/MySpace search deal that expires next year. The publisher has been talking to Microsoft about some sort of exclusivity since this summer, but News Corp. executives also say they’re happy to work with Google if Google is willing to pay up. But what would either company really be buying?

Another source used YouTube as an example of Google getting a mass of videos, when it paid $1.65 billion in 2006 for the online video company.

“That made sense, since Google got all that content to use,” said the source. “But it is hard to see publishers getting the advertising economics and revenue they want from Microsoft for lending their content out, even exclusively.”

Still a third source noted that the only way such a deal could be envisioned by Microsoft is if a majority of publishers was able to band together to block Google from indexing their sites.

“If it was everyone, that might become interesting,” said the source. “But even that has issues, since Microsoft is not interested in having exclusive news for a temporary period of time by overpaying for it.”

Added the source, noting how much money Microsoft has lost in its online efforts so far:

“It’s essentially a marketing expense, and there are a lot better ways to spend that money to win market share than giving it to publishers.”

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

In fact, reps from Google and the AP linked up in Manhattan on Wednesday to discuss the deal, which expires at the end of this year, people familiar with the meeting tell me. This timing makes sense since Google (GOOG) had flown in many of its top brass to New York for a series of internal meetings this week.

But that would come as a surprise to anyone who took Curley’s words, delivered after a speech in Hong Kong on Tuesday, at face value.

Here are Curley’s comments, recorded by an attendee at the Hong Kong meeting and transcribed by Zachary Seward at Nieman Journalism Lab:

Someone asked Curley if Microsoft was willing to accept the AP’s demands. “They have said very strongly that they would,” Curley responded. A bit earlier, he said of Microsoft, “They know how to have a conversation.” And what about Google? “I’m not talking about Google,” he said. “We haven’t talked. We haven’t talked. We haven’t talked with them in any serious way.”

AP spokesman Paul Colford says he has nothing to add to Curley’s comments. But I’ll try to make a case on his behalf: Maybe this is one of those “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” situations whereby Curley doesn’t consider the talks the two sides have been having to be “talks.” Alternate proposal: Maybe Curley is going for “truthiness” instead of “truth.”

I guess that’s possible. The recurring story I’ve heard from sources on both sides of the negotiations, which have been going on for months, is that they’re not moving very far.

The problem: The AP has a list of demands, which start with more money and move on from there, including assurances that its copy will receive better treatment than secondary outlets. And Google hasn’t expressed much interest in changing the existing agreement. The company is “quite happy” with the deal it has now, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told reporters on Wednesday.

I understand why Curley would want to play up his talks with other portals, as well as the notion that he’s willing to pull his cooperative out of the world’s biggest traffic generator. Per above, I don’t think those are particularly effective tactics, but I understand them. But that’s different from creating an alternative reality altogether.

And, it turns out, he speaks the language of love.

Steve Ballmer charmed a crowd of executives and government ministers in Issy-Lex-Moulineaux, France, Tuesday, with a 10-minute speech in their language, the Associated Press reported.

The Microsoft (MSFT) chief executive was there for the opening of the company’s new headquarters and research center. “I thank you for coming here to celebrate an important date for our company and its relations with France. It’s so important that I am daring to speak to you tonight in the language of Moliere,” he said, in what the AP called “careful, well-pronounced French.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site

As I noted in a post last night, the Web site TheWrap.com yesterday asserted that Comcast had inked a deal to buy NBC Universal for $35 billion; Comcast said that was wrong, but didn’t deny being in talks.

This morning, the AP is reporting that two people familiar with the negotiations confirm talks for Comcast to acquire up to half of NBCU, including Vivendi’s stake.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

At first blush, the AP’s description of the program, found in this press release and this FAQ, sounds a lot like an attempt to implement digital rights management–a lock-and-key system–for the news. But at least in this iteration, that’s not the case. The AP is really talking about adding a layer of metadata to its copy, so it can see who’s using it, and where.

“Any time you talk about a tracking system, the thrust of [the commentary] is about enforcing copyright,” Jim Kennedy, the AP’s VP of strategic planning, told me this afternoon. “But what we hope is the outcome out of this is the ability to enable more licensed uses of  content. We want to keep the content open, we don’t want to keep it behind firewalls.”

If you want to see a benign description of the technology the AP intends to use, head to this site, developed by its U.K.-based partner Media Standards Trust. If you don’t have time for that, just imagine Wal-Mart (WMT) adding RFID chips to track its pallets as they move around the country.

Jim Kennedy tells me that the AP will have tests for the new system up and running by mid-November, and hopes to have it in place for all the copy it produces by the end of the year. And in 2010, it will make it available to the cooperative’s members, i.e., other news organizations.

You’ll hear griping about this from some corners, but all of it sounds fine to me–I don’t care how the AP tracks its product. But note that this tracking system only works when its used by someone who already has a business relationship with the AP.

Which means it doesn’t solve the two problems the AP started complaining about this spring: The  fact that bloggers and other nogoodniks are using AP copy without paying for it and the fact that Google (GOOG) isn’t paying the AP enough for the copy it does use.

On those fronts, the AP’s contract with Google expires at the end of this year, and my understanding is that renewal negotiations are moving slowly, at best. And the AP will continue to use Attributor’s tracking service to find unauthorized uses of its stuff on the Web.

And if the AP ever does try to shove its copy behind a firewall, then a tracking system would come in handy. But we’re not there yet.

A federal judge has dismissed the Securities and Exchange Commission’s insider-trading case against Mark Cuban, the AP reports. Astonishingly, Cuban has yet to say anything about this on his blog or his Twitter account. But I assume that will be rectified shortly.

UPDATE: That took a while–nearly two hours by my estimate. But here’s Cuban’s initial post-court Tweet (click to enlarge):

At the D7 conference in May, Cuban declined to talk about the case, which revolved around allegations that he dumped shares he owned in search engine Mamma.com after learning of a secondary offering. But even his noncomment was interesting. From my transcript of his  interview with Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg:

“Kara and Walt: Tell us about your fight with the SEC? Mark: No. [Pause] ‘When someone in the government wants you, it’s not a good place to be. You don’t want to be someone’s skin on the wall.’ Kara: ‘Do you know how it’s going to turn out?’ Mark: ‘Yes.’”

Here’s a highlight reel of the interview; you can see the entire session here.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090717/mark-cuban-beats-the-sec-judge-tosses-insider-trading-case/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090413/jill-sobules-internet-funded-album-california-years-debuts-tomorrow/ http://allthingsd.com/20090413/jill-sobules-internet-funded-album-california-years-debuts-tomorrow/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 07:01:32 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=12145

We consider Jill Sobule to be the musical muse of ATD–which we desperately need since we are obviously way, way too jacked into the matrix.

That’s precisely why we have the gifted singer-songwriter appear annually at our D: All Things Digital conference–to kick off each day’s sessions with one of her songs and, more to the point, add a lot of much-needed levity and nontechie soul to the proceedings.

And tomorrow, Sobule’s Internet-funded album, “California Years,” produced by the legendary Don Was, debuts. I urge everyone to click the link here and get a copy–online, of course.

And by Internet-funded, I mean that the $75,000 needed to produce the album was raised entirely through an innovative Web initiative Sobule ginned up in late 2007 via a site called Jill’s Next Record.

Sobule wrote about the effort several times in our Voices section, where you can read about her asking for ideas here, launching her fund-raising site here and, finally, talking about the result here.

Sobule (pictured here in cartoon form)–whose big mainstream hit a few years ago was a much-better-than-hopelessly-dopey-Katy-Perry “I Kissed a Girl”–had worked her way through four record labels (she was dropped by two and two went belly-up) with six CDs.

Sick and tired of the way musical artists had their work funded, she essentially asked her fans to become her record label, writing on her site: “It would be a sort of patronage thing, where you guys are the Medici family, except I give you prizes for donations of certain amounts.”

The $1,000 “platinum” level, for example, got the donor a theme song and the $5,000 “diamond” level got a house concert by Sobule.

And what her fans are getting now in the completed album is superb–a sometimes funny, sometimes sad and always moving work. (My young sons cannot stop singing her perfect song, “San Francisco,” for example.)

As Sobule writes:

“‘California Years’ was written over the last three years, following my move to the West Coast. It was influenced by the sights and sounds of the Golden State, especially the seductive, but not always sunny Los Angeles. Maybe the next record will be ‘The Utah Month’ or ‘Back to Brooklyn.’

“The whole thing was made possible by a small but mighty fan base. They gave me the love, encouragement and the dough to do this. I was truly surprised and so very grateful. This record is for them.”

Let’s cheer on efforts like Sobule’s and hope for a hit. Because hers is indeed a small but mighty effort, as all kinds of content creators try to figure out businesses in the new digital age, unafraid of the changes inevitably coming (AP might want to take notes about this).

Here is Sobule in a long interview on NPR last week (which you cannot embed, bad NPR!) and another video below on CNN about her digital project:

And here are two videos I did with her about the effort. The first has one of the songs on the new album, called “Nothing to Prove,” and the other an update on what she wants to do next, digitally and musically speaking:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090413/jill-sobules-internet-funded-album-california-years-debuts-tomorrow/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090411/weekend-update-41109/ http://allthingsd.com/20090411/weekend-update-41109/#comments Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:22:17 +0000 Oliver J. Chiang http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=16352

Welcome back to Weekend Update, where we showcase some of the highlights from this site over the past week.

In the umpteenth round of the old media versus new media match, the Associated Press in its annual meeting this week played into the stereotype of the grizzled no-nonsense editor who shakes his fist at the new interweb thing (or was it intertube?) and its feisty friend Google News, who are running amok on his lawn. In addition to trying to “protect news content from misappropriation,” AP board chairman and MediaNews group CEO Dean Singleton emphasized that print was the “meat,” while online was merely the “salt and pepper.” Unimpressed, BoomTown thought Singleton was singling out the steak while missing the sizzle.

In response, Google (GOOG), or He Who Was Not Named, posted a polite, if rather ambiguous, statement on its public policy blog, which was just begging for translation. Also doing some interpreting of his own, AP executive Jim Kennedy spoke with MediaMemo on just what all the fire and brimstone was about. In quieter newspaper-related news, The Wall Street Journal continues on its quest to spread pay content online, possibly through niche content, according to WSJ.com Executive Editor Alan Murray. Also experimenting online is the recently opened news Web site, True/Slant, a heady combination of journalism, social networking and advertising.

Another news item that’s gotten people talking is the fallout from the collapsed IBM-Sun merger, aka Sun pulls a Jerry Yang. (Oh Jerry, the Internet kids because it loves… loves to kid! Pwn-age.) Following the news of the collapse, Sun (JAVA) shares dropped more than 27 percent, leading analysts and Digital Daily to predict difficult times ahead for the company, here and later here as the stock continued its fall over the week. Besides quashing its own stock price, Sun also quashed rumors that chairman and co-founder Scott McNealy would replace CEO Jonathan Schwartz.

Other nonthematic highlights this week:

BoomTown got the exclusive on the anticipated talks between Yahoo’s (YHOO) Carol Bartz and Microsoft’s (MSFT) Steve Ballmer in which the two CEOs discussed the possibility of a search and advertising partnership. Speaking of exclusivity, Google and Microsoft like totally want to be Twitter’s new bff, or maybe go steady if Twitter’s interested.

Digital Daily ruminated on speculations of Time Warner (TWX) doing an AOL spinoff, especially after its hire of former Google exec Tim Armstrong and its attempts to amend debt agreements as per an SEC filing. Also in the rumor mill: The iPhone 3.0 may support onboard video editing. Less of a rumor and more of a slap in the face, to Apple (AAPL) at least: Elan Microelectronics has taken off the gloves (and taken up the lawsuit) because it believes that Apple’s products infringe on its touchscreen patents.

MediaMemo goes over the facts about Vevo, the new online music video hub that’s a partnership between Google’s YouTube and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, with interesting ramifications for both. Meanwhile, iTunes has put in place its new tiered-pricing system, in which songs will now cost 69 cents, 99 cents, or $1.29. But in a question that shocked no one: Where are the all the lowest-tier songs? Don’t worry your pretty little heads, said Big Music, they’re on their way.

In a new Mossblog, Walt Mossberg reports from the battlefield of the growing Smartphone Wars, in which iPhones, BlackBerries and others are engaged in mortal combat. In the Mossberg Solution, Katherine Boehret reviews BumpTop, an application that takes your flat, plain old X-Y plane of a desktop to the next dimension, that is, the third dimension.

More next week!

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090411/weekend-update-41109/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090410/ap-exec-to-the-untrained-eye-it-looks-like-were-stupid/ http://allthingsd.com/20090410/ap-exec-to-the-untrained-eye-it-looks-like-were-stupid/#comments Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:38:02 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=6181 Rough week for the Associated Press, at least if you measure it by headlines: First, the venerable news organization/aggregator confused the likes of me by announcing a vague plan to fight the Internet. Then it went ahead and confirmed everyone’s worst fears with a boneheaded attempt to stop someone from showing a YouTube clip it had already distributed.

Time for some image repair, don’t you think?

The AP is trying to do this at this very moment by distributing an 11-point FAQ that attempts to clarify exactly what it’s thinking. But that document is still a little vague and overly formal. Good thing I got on the phone yesterday with the pleasant Jim Kennedy, who oversees strategic planning for the AP and who speaks in clear, concise English.

Much of what we talked about was a rehash of what we talked about Monday afternoon, when AP Chairman Dean Singleton first riled everyone up with his “mad as hell” speech. But given the rampant confusion of the past few days, I thought it was worth going over again. Some excerpts from our chat:

On the AP’s plans to chase down people who “misappropriate” its content: Kennedy stresses that the news organization isn’t planning on creating a Wall Street Journal-style pay wall around its content. And it’s not concerned about bloggers who link to its stories. His beef is with sites that are reprinting AP’s stories on a regular basis without paying for them. “The activity that we’re trying to limit is the systematic harvesting of news without trying to license it,” he says. “The people who are building a business by taking the content and trying to recreate a news report. That’s what we’re trying to address. We’ve had success doing this.”

On the AP’s plan to promote its work more effectively. This has been construed in some quarters as a plan to create a search engine or news portal. But it’s really just an attempt to upgrade the AP’s search engine optimization strategy–that is, trying to get its stuff to show up higher on Google’s (GOOG) search results. It will do that via “search pages,” or “topic pages,” which are par for the course in the Web world. Check out this New York Times (NYT) page on Somali pirates, or this Huffington Post page on newspapers, and you’ll get an idea of where the AP is going.

If the search page plan works, the pages will be generating plenty of page views when people land on them, and it’s possible that the AP will sell ads on that inventory, Kennedy says. But their real function is to shuttle searchers to the original source material from the AP’s members.

On the AP’s beef with Google: It’s real. But many of the stories published this week conflated the AP’s gripe-essentially, that it’s not getting paid enough by the search engine for the use of its content–with its saber-rattling against aggregators who aren’t paying the AP at all. The AP may indeed end up suing people in the latter group. But it plans on resolving its Google problem with a new contract that will replace the one that expires this year.

Kennedy is vague when it comes to specifics about the Google contract and what he’d like changed: “It’s just a reevaluation of the situation,” he says. But he’s clear that the company intends to keep working with the world’s largest Web site. “When we’re talking about Google, we’re talking about our future business relationship,” he says. “When we’re talking about misappropriation, we’re talking about people who have never contemplated a business relationship with us.”

On the confusing message that the AP presented to the world this week: Guilty as charged, says Kennedy. But he argues that his group has indeed given some thought to what it’s doing, even if it hasn’t communicated that clearly to date. “The future is going to be a lot different than the present and the past on the Internet, and we’re trying to get ready for that process,” he says. “To the untrained eye it looks like we’re stupid. But we’re looking forward to a totally new space where we have to get ready to do things in a totally different way. We’re trying to be smart business people and we’re trying to stay in business.”

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090410/ap-exec-to-the-untrained-eye-it-looks-like-were-stupid/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090408/boomtown-decodes-googles-associated-press-blog-so-you-dont-have-to/ http://allthingsd.com/20090408/boomtown-decodes-googles-associated-press-blog-so-you-dont-have-to/#comments Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:01:49 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=11885 Yesterday, in response to Associated Press board Chairman and MediaNews Group CEO Dean Singleton’s diatribe against those who shoplift news and his pledge to “protect news content from misappropriation,” Google posted a response on its public policy blog.

Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that most people think the Singleton speech was aimed at the search giant and its burgeoning power over the distribution of media, although Google was not named by him.

Still, it’s always nice to make nice. Sort of.

So, it was hard to resist translating this Google (GOOG) blog by one of its lawyers.

Google wrote: Some questions related to Google News and the Associated Press
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Posted by Alexander Macgillivray, Associate General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property

Translation: Questions? Someone has questions about our practices? OK, we will answer them only to assuage the panic among the little brains about our size and power over IP.

But remember: They don’t call us Googzilla for nothing!

Google wrote: Yesterday I entered the following search in Google News: [Phish in mountain view]. The search results led me to click on this headline, which took me to the full story by the San Jose Mercury News about Phish’s upcoming concert at Shoreline Amphitheatre.

Translation: Hey, we might seem like geeks over here at the Googleplex, chomping on organic flax crackers and making up scary algorithms, but we know of this hip Phish phenom. We looked it up under “hip” on Google!

[Complete digression: BoomTown was in a car pool with the very sweet Trey Anastasio for many years in middle school, and he was not such a hipster then!]

Google wrote: Users like me are sent from different Google sites to newspaper websites at a rate of more than a billion clicks per month. These clicks go to news publishers large and small, domestic and international–day and night.

Translation: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Google wrote: And once a reader is on the newspaper’s site, we work hard to help them earn revenue. Our AdSense program pays out millions of dollars to newspapers that place ads on their sites, and our goal is that our interest-based advertising technology will help newspapers make more from each click we send them by serving better, more relevant ads to their readers to generate higher returns.

Translation: Money makes the world go around,
the world go around, the world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
it makes the world go round.

A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,
a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound,
Is all that makes the world go around,
that clinking clanking sound,
Can make the world go round.

Google wrote: The Associated Press (AP) recently issued a press release announcing plans to develop an initiative to “protect” the newspaper industry’s content online. Since then, some readers, users and journalists have asked us if the AP’s plan is about Google since we host complete AP articles. The answer is that it doesn’t appear to pertain to Google since we host those articles in partnership with the AP. We announced that partnership in 2007 as part of an experiment in hosting articles on our site. In hosting agreements such as this, we pay news agencies and display the entire text of articles, such as this one from the AP about President Obama’s visit to Turkey.

Translation: Ain’t nobody here but us chickens!

Hey, we pay up some! Not a lot! But some. I mean, YouTube doesn’t pay up and it has tons of content on the site that is not theirs.

Wait, we own YouTube. Forget that example.

Back to chickens. Nobody here!

Google wrote: We drive traffic and provide advertising in support of all business models–whether news sources choose to host their articles with us or on their own sites, and whether their business model is ad-supported or based on subscriptions. In all cases, for news articles we’ve crawled and indexed but do not host, we show users just enough to make them want to read more–the headline, a “snippet” of a line or two of text and a link back to to the news publisher’s website.

Translation: Hey, we only give consumers a little smackeral, in the lingo of the great Winnie the Pooh. Well, yes, that bear does always end up gobbling all the honey. Forget that example.

Back to chickens then, but chickens with an advertising-supported business model!

Google wrote: In the U.S., the doctrine of fair use enshrined in the US Copyright Act allows us to show snippets and links. The fair use doctrine protects transformative uses of content, such as indexing to make it easier to find [pdf]. Even though the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner a veto over such uses, it is our policy to allow any rightsholder, in this case newspaper or wire service, to remove their content from our index–all they have to do is ask us or implement simple technical standards such as robots.txt or metatags.

Translation: Oh yes, the fine print. Legal stuff–fair use, transformative, indexing. In other words, we’re covered, and 3,476 Washington lobbyists have our back.

But hey, here is some technical stuff and we’ll also take it out–all you have to do is ask, although it will effectively make you undiscoverable for all of time!

And, if you do then want us to take it out, comb through our gazillions of search results to find your stuff, over and over and over again, like gerbils on a treadmill. We totally hope that does not exhaust you in every way possible.

Google wrote: As for Phish in Mountain View this summer, asking will get you nowhere because the tickets are already sold out.

Translation: Also, for anyone keeping score, Phish owes us too, since no one would have found tickets without us. Google HQ is right smack up against Shoreline Amphitheatre, so we are watching.

So let’s review: Ozymandias, King of Kings. Chickens. Smackeral. Hip.

Nothing to see here, so please enjoy this lovely Phish video of “Bouncing Around the Room” from YouTube (relax, it’s from their official channel):

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090408/boomtown-decodes-googles-associated-press-blog-so-you-dont-have-to/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090407/google-responds-to-ap%e2%80%99s-tougher-stance/ http://allthingsd.com/20090407/google-responds-to-ap%e2%80%99s-tougher-stance/#comments Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:15:34 +0000 Shira Ovide http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=10346 The Associated Press said yesterday that it will more aggressively police its content online, a move seen as a possible precursor to newspapers pushing Google (GOOG) and other popular Web aggregators to pay directly for news stories. In Google’s public-policy blog, a company attorney today defended the search giant’s stance on content from the AP, a cooperative owned by newspapers.

“Some readers, users and journalists have asked us if the AP’s plan is about Google since we host complete AP articles,” writes Alexander Macgillivray. “The answer is that it doesn’t appear to pertain to Google since we host those articles in partnership with the AP.”

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090407/google-responds-to-ap%e2%80%99s-tougher-stance/feed/ 1