Informationoverlord

Thanks to an PLC update I came across an interesting defamation case between Islam Expo Ltd a company which organises the bi-annual IslamExpo, an Islamic exhibition and the publisher of the Spectator (and one it’s journalists) concerning an article published online at www.spectator.co.uk. The item stated that ” Demos sponsored and participated in a debate at IslamExpo and a seminar on ‘Political Islam’. That’s right: a left of centre think tank worked with a clerical fascist party to organise a conference about its racist, genocidal, theocratic political programme.”

Islam Expo complained that this was defamation and the court was asked to decide on “In their natural and ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean that the Claimant is a fascist party dedicated to genocide which organised IslamExpo, a conference with a racist and genocidal programme”.

Where it becomes interesting – for me, at least - is the Spectator argued that the statement was not defamatory when read in the proper context of the underlying hyperlinked documentation. In the online article “Demos”, “Harry’s Place points out” (mentioned earlier in the article) “Debate” and “Seminar” all linked to other material.

As the court points out “It is a principle of law most recently defined in Charleston v. Newsgroup Newspapers Limited [1985] 2 AC 65, 70-71, that in order to determine the meaning of words complained of it is necessary to take into account the context in which the words were used and the mode of publication. Thus a claimant cannot select an isolated passage in an article and complain of that alone if other parts of the article throw a different light on that passage.”

So the question becomes, in an online world, does the material found at the end of a hyperlink need to be taken into account when deciding on the issue of context in a defamation case? The Spectator argued they should, Islam Expo that they shouldn’t.

Justice Tugendhat decided he would take into account what was in the hyperlinks, but did so “without thereby intending to imply any ruling, one way or the other, as to whether that approach is right in law.” His decision did not actually help the Spectator, whose own lawyer conceded that without reference to the documents the subject of the hyperlinks, the words complained of are capable of being understood as ‘ambiguous.’

Justice Tugendhat concluded that it was clear the words complained of are capable of referring to Islam Expo, and that a hypothetical reader/person could do so. The case can now proceed to trial.

I think Justice Tugendhat was spot on with his conclusion. The question as to whether linked content should be included, or even considered, as part of the ‘context’ is a much more interesting one. I would probably argue that hyperlinks, in the context of online articles, act in the same way that footnotes and references would in a print publication. Although easier to access this ‘referred’ content online than in print, so more likely to be read, it is still for the individual to read or disregard their existence. So, for me, I can’t see how hyperlinked content can be regarded as context in situations such as this one.

Last weekend many of my fellow Legal Library and Information friends (and legal publishers/vendors) took over Brighton for the annual BIALL conference. I couldn’t make it, but I believe a good time was had. But it did get me thinking.

Each year several awards are handed out including those for Law librarian of the Year (congratulations Jules Winterton, Associate Director and Librarian, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies for winning this one this year), Best Legal Information Service, Supplier of the Year Award, and Legal Journals Award.

The latter two are always interesting – won this year by Wildy & Sons Ltd and Common Market Law Review respectively, but for me the more interesting award would be for Worst Supplier of the Year Award, and/or Worst Legal Journals Award – or maybe a Legal Information ‘Villain’ award. Yes, we should recognise excellence but we should also as an association be turning the spotlight on those who consistently demonstrate poor customer service, excessively hike prices without justification and who – in the buzz word of our new government – are anything but ‘transparent’ in their subscription costs.

So, what say you BIALL. How about next year we have a new category for those who should be doing better.

In the meantime, your nominees for worst legal supplier/publisher of the year – feel free to be anonymous - are more than welcomed.

“And I lie awake and dream at night, sometimes I even sleep, then I dream of her behind the wall [of sleep]” - The Smithereens - Behind the wall of sleep

And so it came to pass …

This next couple of weeks will see the Times and Sunday Times disappear behind a paywall. It is part of an attempt by the News Corp owned titles to try and generate a steady income to help pay for the continuation of quality journalism. At least, that is the argument.

Visitors to the sites – they will now be separate sites – will be asked to part with either 1 pound a day or two pounds a week to access the content [Those who subscribe to the hard-copy print version will get free access as part of that subscription]

So, why the move?

The past 18 months has seen various people on News Corp including both Rupert and James Murdoch pointing to the number of newspapers that are now going to the wall – especially in the US, but most people would also argue that even in the UK a number of papers are walking a tightrope over being able to continue to run a print newspaper.

For most of these 18 months two targets have often been in the cross-hairs of News Corp – Google and the BBC. Indeed just a couple of weeks ago James Murdoch whilst giving a speech to inaugurate University College London’s new Centre for Digital Humanities, reminded us of that.

“[J]ournalism – print and digital – faces trouble. In the last year in the U.S. alone, 109 newspapers shut down or stopped publishing a print edition, leaving many cities without a single paper. The reasons are not hard to understand. Search companies and aggregators skim content from a thousand sources, sell it to clients, scoop up advertising revenues and put little or nothing back into professional newsgathering.” [ It’s Google’s fault - Check]

“Second, many of the pressures on content – journalism included – are caused by governments. Frankly, states provide a level of subsidised news that is: incredibly high; comprehensive; and well funded.” [ It’s the BBC’s fault - Check]

So the solution is a paywall??

Search and yea shall not find…

The approach the Times and Sunday Times are taking – and one which frankly seems like suicide to me – is to cut off the supply to search engines and news aggregators all together. Yes, finally, after all the endless and tiresome bitching about how Google and others were ’stealing their content’ on the one hand, whilsy at the same time not just adding a robot.text file onto their sites to stop them doing so, now they will be.[Of course, when they started bitching about this last year News Corp still owned Rotten Tomatoes – the film review site which did for film reviews exactly what News Corp were complaining others like goggle news where doing to their content. This has since been sold to Flixster]

So there will be no taster or brief excerpts of articles on the home page and no way to know what content is on the site/in the papers without buying it in some form. So, from next week I am not going to even know if there is an article in the Times I should read. How does that do anything other than target just loyal times readers. We have a few people that might like us, sod everyone else, this seems to be saying.

Assistant editor Tom Whitwell added on the search issue: “The clarity is something that was very important. If you’re asking someone to pay for something, it has to be very clear what they’re paying for.”

Quite.

I have signed up to have a look and the new lay-out is very ‘paper’ like. It looks nice, but not sure I could see myself paying even two quid just so I could access it every day – especially when I still have quality reporting outside the paywall - and, of course, the BBC for the latest ‘News’.

So, this move is about current PRINT readers, and a handfull of people online who ‘value’ the brand. It’s about proping up the traditional print part of the business, and very little to do with protecting quality journalism or anything else.

Sunday Times editor John Witherow at a recording of Media Show (Radio4) which I attended recently admitted the company expected to loose 90% plus of their online traffic as a result on the move. He seemed happy that that small dedicated number would provide through subscriptions and through selling more targeted advertising to advertisers behind the paywall, would prove a success.

The all or nothing approach – which wont even offer snippets for free or indeed any ‘free’ articles - just seems like a bad way to try and sure up traditional print sales.

Far from increasing value in the brand, I fear this could backfire and result in the Times becoming the forgotten son online very quickly. This will result in some form of deal with Google and co to allow indexing of content or at least headlines behind the paywall, to at minimum to keep people online aware that there is content on particular topics in the papers.

Still, on the other side of the coin is advertising revenue alone and other partnerships really going to be enough outside of the paywall? At the same Media Show recording the Guardian’ Alan Rusbridger said he could see a time where there Guardian no longer existed at all in print format – and that time was not all that far in the distance. He also said that ad revenues were on the rise and by partnering with other sites to act as a portal for quality reporting meant he was confident the paper would survive, and that whilst he loved print, that doing so as an online only proposition was not necessarily a bad thing.

Who is right? Both? Neither?

Even Rusbridger admitted that if the Times’ move proved a success there would be huge pressure on all others - including the Guardian - to follow suit.

I don’t need no wall around me…

Instinctively, I have to admit I am against the idea of paywalls for all the reasons often put forward by those against them - in an online world where you want to be part of the conversation and part of wider social network –especially in an age of Facebook, Twitter, etc cutting yourself off from that, just seems counter-productive. At the same time I do recognise the need to pay and invest in good journalism and in getting reporters on the ground around the world etc.

And being against paywalls doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t pay for certain access and content. I buy a newspaper every day now, so I’m already happy to pay for my news.

My consumption of news online however is much different from how I consume offline and from a variety of sources: BBC (the elephant in the room of course) blogs, specialist websites, and newspaper websites: The Guardian, Telegraph, Times, FT and New York Times get looked at most days. If they all went behind Paywall’s would I take out a subscription to each of them? One of them? None of them?

It would depend what I was getting of course, but my choice could quite possibily be the latter. I’d continue to read a print paper daily – and even if that came with ‘online access’ I wouldn’t be able to take advantage of it because, I like to support local business and I can only do that by buying my paper every day from my local shop. That is worth more to more than saving a couple of quid and getting online access.

And here’s the thing. I paid to buy the Guardian’s iPhone app to access their content on my iPhone. I could have continued to access the content via the browser – which was perfectly fine, but I liked how the content access experience had been maximized for the device so I parted with the cash. But because of screen size and other things I wouldn’t sit and ‘read’ this on the way to work, for example. It was always more for ‘quick reads’ when watch TV or when out and about. Would I if it were on an iPad or similar? I don’t know, but at the moment I still doubt it.

Also, like with the web in general these days, I have personalised the app to show me certain kinds of news as default: Main, Media, Tech, Sport.

This is great, but at the same time – in extreme - it leads to a cultural blindness where we only every read or look at the news that ‘already’ interests us. One of the things I still love about reading an actual physical newspaper is the serendipity of your eye being caught be an article on a topic you might not have previously been interested in, or an investigative report on something that jars your social conscience.

iPad: - iCame, iSaw, iConquered ??

But on the iPad newspapers look great … it’s a game changer …. Blah, blah, blah.

It is no coincidence that the launch of the iPad in the Uk is happening at same time as the Times’ move behind the paywall. And, The Times look VERY nice on the iPad. But is the iPad or any ‘tablet’ really the saviour?

It will certainly give publishers the potential to deliver content in a way that is more ‘browse-able and readable’ than viewing on a PC or laptop etc, but people are going have to buy an awful lot of them. You’ll need Mr Times and Mrs Telegraph to buy one each and sign up respectively x several million.

The question id do you want people reading your ‘paper’ or your ‘content’. The online world has made these different things for many of us, as I said before I usually read article from a variety of ‘newspapers’ each day, I’m no longer loyal to just one source, and I’m not sure I could ever go back to doing so online.

I wish the Times and Sunday Times well, but I fear that their all or nothing approach could be knocking several long nails into their own coffin.

Porn publisher Perfect 10 has been back in court again. After failed attempts to get the courts to rule that Google, Amazon, Microsoft and others infringed their copyright by offering thumbnail copies of the images – usually uploaded or stored on other people’s websites, they have now failed in an attempt to get an injunction against German file-hosting service Rapidshare.

Perfect 10 claims by hosting copies of their content on their servers they are directly infringing their copyright, violating their distribution rights, and are additional guilty of contributory infringement.

Users of Rapidshare can upload files to the site and get an url which they can use to share access to that content with friends etc. Rapidshare does not offer a search facility or offer an index of files stored on its servers.

The District Court for Southern District of California found that as Rapidhsare did not make files available and index them in a manner that would make searching for content useful, it is not like Napster or other p2p services and is therefore not making infringing material available in the same way, and the court “declines to hold Rapidshare liable for direct infringement on a theory of deemed distribution.”

The Court did find that Rapidsahre had specific knowledge of direct infringement by some of its users – due to being contacted by Perfect 10, however the court found rapidshare was not contributorily liable because far from the evidence showing that rapidshare was doing nothing to address to presence of this content on its servers but that “[r]ather, the evidence suggests that RapidShare is using information provided by Plaintiff to locate and remove infringing materials, and is also taking independent steps to identify, locate, and remove infringing files.”

The Court did however say that rapidshare could not currently rely on any DCMA safe harbor protection as it yet to give the US copyright office specific information regarding its designated agent as specified in the legislation.

On Perfect 10’s claim that without injunctive relief, it will be forced into bankruptcy - an argument it used in its case against Google too, If I rememer rightly - Judge Huff responded that the evidence before her didn’t back up this claim and actually showed Perfect 10’s “apparent lack of interest in self-help measures and its delay in bringing this action.” Ouch. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied

The wrappers came off Viacom’s and YouTube’s motions for summary judgment in their copyright infringement case. The motions made for interesting reading as both sides choose to selectively target the other in their arguments.

Viacom

Viacom told the court that it is only interested in infringement pre-May 2008 (the point at which YouTube deployed digital fingerprinting and filtered for Viacom, when the parties signed a content deal). Viacom is therefore saying that since they signed their deal with YouTube they are happy with YouTube’s current practices, as regards infringing copyright material, and therefore don’t believe it currently induces infringement.

Viacom’s argument is that it is clear that the YouTube founders: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, made a deliberate decision in 2005 to build a business based on piracy. They cite emails exchanges between the founders admitting early on the site is full of copyrighted material but that they needed to keep it up on the site to build traffic. They pointed in particular to exchanges between Hurley, still YouTube’s CEO, and Karim. During discovered Hurley informed the prosecution that he had lost his entire email repository. When then presented with copies of those emails retrieved from Karim, which showed all three were aware that 80% of their hosted content was infringing copyrighted material and that they wanted to “concentrate all our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics however evil”, Viacom claims Hurley developed “serial amnesia” about any of those conversations.

Even more damning a memorandum personally distributed to YouTube’s entire board of directors by Karim just 6 months before the sale to Google stated: ” As of today episodes and clips of the following well-known shows can still be found: Family Guy, South Park, MTV Cribs, Daily Show, Reno 91 1, Dave Chapelle. This content is an easy target for critics who claim that copyrighted content is entirely responsible for YouTube’s popularity. Although YouTube is not legally required to monitor content (as we have explained in the press) and complies with DMCA takedown requests, we would benefit from preemptivelv removing content that is blatantly illegal and likely to attract criticism. ”

Viacom then turns to Google – who it commends for running a totally legal rival video hosting service, Google Video, before its purchase of YouTube for $1.8 billion in October 2006. It points to internal Google documents where Google identified YouTube as “a rogue enabler of content theft”; “business model is completely sustained by pirated content”, and “it’s a video Grokster”.

It seems Hurley was not the only person to have difficulty finding and remembering what happened in the early days. When asked to produce any relevant documents including emails that dealt with the acquisition of YouTube, Google CEO Eric Scmidt managed to find just 19. He explained this by stating it had “been my practice for 30 years to not retain emails unless asked specifically” – this from a company that launched Gmail in 2004 so people would never have to delete an email again. Viacom also point to the testimony of Larry Page who apparently could not even remember whether he was in favour of Google buying YouTube or not.

Next Viacom point to the fact that YouTube had the ability to deploy fingerprinting and filtering technology – they has a licence for Audible Magic from early 2006 – but either choose not to at all, or only agreed to do so with media organisation who agreed content licences with them. Viacom claims YouTube withheld applying these technologies to their content until May 2008 when the parties signed a content licencing agreement.

It continues to say that YouTube continued to be aware that much of the content on the site was infringing and yet took no action to do anything about it. They argue they could quite easily have removed obviously infringing material.

When it comes to the law, Viacom argues that as in Grokster, YouTube is guilty of inducement and is not entitled to any of the affirmative defences, available under s512(C) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), to protect it from copyright infringement liability. In particular, it states that service providers will not be liable “for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider.” This protection is available only if the service provider satisfies a number of statutory requirements. For example, the service provider must not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the relevant system is infringing, must not receive a direct financial benefit from infringing activity, and must expeditiously remove or disable access to material if it is notified that the material is infringing or is the subject of infringing activity.

Viacom contended that YouTube does not qualify for § 512(c) immunity because YouTube had actual knowledge and was aware of infringing activity on their site and did not act to stop it; it had the ability to control infringing activety and remove any content – as they do frequently with adult material - but chose not to; turned a blind eye to acts of infringement for the sake of profit from web traffic and ad revenues; and that it did not store video clips “at the direction of a user.”, as it actively creates “Flash-formatted” copies of video files uploaded by users and allows streaming of those clips, making it a direct infringer of copyright because its copyright infringement is not from web hosting but from broadcasting videos.
This final line of argument seems a little odd, as YouTube still creates version of uploaded conetnt in this way post May 2008 where Viacom apparently has no issues with the site.

Viacom also point to the fact that YouTube has signed licencing deals to distribute their service and the infringing content over third party platforms – such as the iPhone – an action that it clearly not storage, and so is not protected by DCMA.

YouTube

Google/YouTube, perhaps unsurprisingly, choose to ignore the sites beginnings and the initial days of the Google take over and instead concentrate on what the site has become. It argues that whilst it can’t control what its user upload it has taken numerous steps to keep illegal material off the site: it’s T&Cs; copyright tips; 10 minute limit; registered a DCMA agent; removes infringing materials as result of DCMA request; terminates and blocks accounts of users suspects of being repeat infringers; and employs team to help copyright owners remove unauthorised material.

YouTube states the problem with Viacom’s case is that the actual actions of Viacom undermine its own case. Firstly, it points to Viacom’s own failed attempt to buy YouTube in 2006. If Viacom saw it as a video Grokster, why did they want to buy it, and why were they already negotiating a possible content licencing agreement before Google acquired the site? It also states that it was Viacom, not YouTube that scuppered a deal between to two in 2007 by requesting more money than any other content partner– although YouTube are quiet on the allegation of withholding fingerprint technology for only those who signed content licencing deals.

It states that in February 2007 the two companies agreed that Viacom would present a super takedown notice. YouTube says that within 24 hours ‘virtually all’ the videos had been removed. The following month Viacom launch this legal action, demanding one billion dollars.

YouTube produced its own email evidence that from early 2006 onward Viacom employees and its agent BayTSP were actively uploading clips to the site, infact they even had a documented policy to ensure that some content stayed up on the site. In November 2006, just after Google took charge 316 infringing South Park clips were found on the site, and yet Viacom only requested the removal of one.

YouTube accuses Viacom of using stealth marketing to get fake accounts set up to promote uploaded viral videos from Viacom from the ‘grassroots’. A number of commentators have expressed the view that the FTC might be interested in this evidence.

In relation to the 63,497 clips in this case (which includes one from the FA Premier league of ONE second duration) YouTube stated most were the subject of DCMA notices and taken down in response. However, YouTube claims its discover in the case shows that many of these clips were posted at Viacom’s direction. This is an accusation that seems to have been backed up by Viacom twice having to ask the court to remove clips from the list - 241 clips in October 2009, after realizing that many had actually been uploaded by Viacom employees, and this week a further 6 clips that were mistakenly included back in October in addition to removing another 187 clips ‘ in order to streamline the issues in this case’.

YouTube argues that if Viacom is still only just discovering what was a legitimate authorised copy of its content in the site as opposed to an unauthorised one three years after starting the case how was YouTube supposed to identify this ‘obvious infringing activity’ within hours or days. Whilst the courts had found that service providers must remove material on their own where infringement would be apparent form a brief and casual viewing, YouTube argues that Viacom has shown that even it is incapable of doing this successfully. Additionally, if Viacom deliberately refrained from sending takedown notices for certain clips, how could YouTube be obligated to remove those same videos on sight.

YouTube also points to the recent decisions in cases featuring fellow video sharing site Veoh (v UMG and v Io Group) in which against UMG a request for summary judgment was refused and against lo Group the case was dismissed. In the Veoh case in particular the court agreed that the created on flash videos and associated actions by the site fell within the scope of § 512(c), because all of them are narrowly directed toward providing access to material stored at the direction of users. YouTube argues it does the same, so should be equally protected.

Both motions make compelling reading when read alone. It seems likely however that both motions will be dismissed and the case will head to the courtroom.

Eric Goldman, Associate Professor of Law at Santa Clara University School, asks the interesting question. If Viacom is right that YouTube induced infringement in 2005-06, but doesn’t currently induces infringement (after all, Viacom isn’t contesting post-May 2008 activity) How the courts determine when YouTube flipped the switch from inducing to not? And does flipping the switch cure any of the past infringement, or does it only cut off future claims?

Keep watching this one.

I see the Newspaper Publishers Association (NPA) has started moaning to the BBC Trust (and plans to also moan to the DCMS) about the Beeb’s plans to launch phone apps for its news and sport content later this year. The reason? It would “damage the nascent market” for news apps.

Really? I’m not buying that as an argument.

I used buying to describe this as I suspect that is the real reason for the NPA’s objection. Whilst the Newspapers look to erect pay walls for their content they don’t want the Beeb coming in and offering theirs for free on yet another platform. They’re already the elephant in the room as far as charging for online news goes as it is. If the apps and or content are remaining free then i don’t see what the argument is. Money can be the only reason.

I look at the BBC site daily from my iPhone. I don’t need an app, although one that improved the experience would certainly be nice to have, I don’t deny. However, I also look daily at content from my Guardian and Daily Telegraph apps (I ditched the Independent’s one because it is such a crap app that it was a waste of time to use - and I say this as someone who actually buys the Indy every week day in good old fashioned hard copy).

It is not an either or option for me (as least not until I’m being asked to pay for access) and nor is it likely to be for most other people - unless they already don’t engage it the news, and for them the absense of a BBC news app wont make them any more likely to start using the Telegraph app or the Daily Mail app.

The NPA and its members - like those in commercial radio and TV - should spend less time moaning insesently about the BBC (yes, sometimes it does step over the line) and more time working on offering compelling alternatives. I sometime think if it didn’t already exist the likes of the NPA would have to create the BBC just to give themselves someone to moan about.

I see in the Guardian that The German Federation of Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) and Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ) have become the latest groups to jump on the ‘Google are stealing our content’ bandwagon and have complained to the Federal Cartel Office about Google including news article “snippets” in its search results without payment to the news sites in question.

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder where these people were when they had that meeting about ‘what the web is and what the internet is?’

If you don’t want search engines searching and indexing you stuff, put a bloody robots.txt file on your site and add the relevant domains to it – problem solved. And, if you don’t want search engines searching your content, then what the fuck are you on the internet for in the first place?

I have to say my first question in any case like this would be – so, do you have a robots.txt file in place to stop your content being ’stolen’ without your permission and you entering into a commercial agreement? If the answer is YES, then I take the case forward. If the answer is NO, I tell you to fuck off and to stop wasting my time.

So, what is it they object to exactly you ask? Well things like this –

German News Groups, Microsoft Unit File Anti-Trust Complaints Against Google
paidContent.org - ?16 hours ago?
—The Federation of Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) and Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ) have complained about that ‘ol chestnut - Google’s use of …

It is also curious how it always seems to be Google, not Microsoft or Yahoo that is the problem. Do Microsoft and Yahoo already pay German Federation of Newspaper Publisher and Association of German Magazine Publishers to include their members’ snippets in their search results/ news search results? I suspect not. Also, I believe I’m right in saying that Yahoo’s news service is by far the most popular and most used on the web, not Google’s, although this may be more about adwords revenue.

I fully appreciate the difficulties that the publishing industry is going through – my girlfriend was a casualty of those problems last year and more friends of hers have lost their jobs in the past few weeks – but these endless attempts by the industry to blame everybody else for their failings is getting tiresome. Without the likes of Google, the only people who’d be reading their content are those current readers who have been abandoning their traditional print versions, and how long do you think they’ll keep their business afloat? Here, let me hand you the nails for your own coffins.

“Millions of peaches peaches for free / Millions of peaches peaches for me” (Presidents of the USA)

I was please to see Peaches Geldof getting a result at the High Court

The Daily Star had published a front page article with headline: “PEACHES: SPEND NIGHT WITH ME FOR £5K”. which was then followed up by a full article on page 5 of the paper describing how Peaches and her girlie pals rake in the mega bucks for providing their services at A-list parties”, and implying that Miss Geldof was infact prostituting herself.

Geldof complained to the Press Complaints Commission and the paper and Miss Geldof agreed to the text of a retraction:

“In our edition of 29 September we ran an article on our front page and page 5 about Peaches Geldof. The front page article carried the headline “PEACHES: SPEND NIGHT WITH ME FOR £5K”. The article went on to state that “Peaches and her girlie pals rake in the mega bucks for providing their services at A-list parties”. We now accept that Peaches does not charge a fee to attend parties or events like London Fashion Week as was claimed in the article. We also apologise to Peaches for the implication in the headline that she provided services of a personal or sexual nature for the payment of a fee.”

Where the parties differed was in where they thought the retraction should appear. The Star went for page 2, Miss Geldof thought it should have been on page 1. The PCC agreed with the Star stating: ” While the front page may have been open to a certain interpretation, it did not contain any specific claims about the “services” offered by the complainant. The inside article did not suggest that the services were in any way sexual, and made clear that they related to non-controversial entertainment at parties. As the front page article did not carry a specifically inaccurate claim, and as the main inaccuracy was on page 5, the decision to locate the apology prominently on page 2 (with a photograph) was, in the Commission’s view, proportionate.”

Not happy with that, Miss Geldof decided to take the case to the High Court accusing the paper of Libel. Express Newspapers was represented in court by its solicitor, Zoe Norden, to withdraw the allegations and to apologise publicly to Geldof for the distress caused to her by publication of the article “The defendant accepts that there is no truth in the allegation made in the article, and apologises to the claimant for any distress caused by the publication.” It also paid her a substantial sum by way of damages and agreed to pay her legal costs.

Good for Peaches. Bad for the PCC.

I’m sorry, ” the front page may have been open to a certain interpretation.” Really? I’m not sure how a full page spread and headline saying “PEACHES: SPEND NIGHT WITH ME FOR £5K”, was going to be interpreted as anything other than suggesting she was selling her body for that sum, or that that was not the intention of the paper in publishing that headline, otherwise it would have said ” PEACHES: GELDOF CHARGES 5K TO SHOW UP AT PARTIES”. It frankly did not matter that it didn’t contain any specific claims about the “services” offered by Peaches. Another example of why the PCC is a joke.

I was reading this morning in the Wall St Journal that HarperCollins (News Corp) , Simon & Schuster (CBS Corp) and Hachette Book Group (Lagardere SCA) have all decided that from next year they are going to delay the availability of e-book publications of many of their new Hardback titles in 2010 for between 1-6 months.

The reason? That the popularity of simultaneously available $9.99 e-book bestsellers with the new hardcovers puts the publishing industry’s business in danger and leaves them with less money to invest in new authors.

Hmmm, that argument sounds familiar. Try and save one market whilst crippling a newer one. Hmmm, Oh wait, of course, it’s the same one the Music industry trotted out. Let’s see what happened when they did that – oh yes – mass piracy.

Seriously, do these people in the tradition media not learn lessons? And do they also not see they’re missing the point in that there are people who would buy the eBook who may not have bought the Hardback at all – this is a new additional sale = added revenue; there are also people who might buy both. What this sounds like is an attempt to make the eBook a replacement for the paperback release. It could work; but the price will be more eBook piracy.

I can’t help thinking the industry would be better served trying to convince those people who have become eBook buyers to just buy more eBooks than they would have had they been buying hardback books simply BECAUSE the price is cheaper.

Techcrunch and others seem to be running with the story of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp looking to maybe cut a deal with Microsoft to allow it to carry links to its news content whilst cutting off Google.

I’m sure the folks at Google are thinking – so what.

If Microsoft and Murdoch think that this deal would suddenly drive lots of people away from Google and over to Bing I think they are showing yet another spectacular lack of understanding of how things work.

Most people use Yahoo News / Google News / MSN News etc to find out ‘what is going on now’ - they are after breaking news. They are not – as a rule – looking for ‘what’s breaking at The Sun / The Times etc. If they are interested in that then they’ll either go directly to that paper’s website or they’ll already have some sort of rss feed set up from that publication to alert them to any new content.

Microsoft/Bing would need exclusive deals with a LOT of publishers for this to have any effect what-so-ever. For the ROI, I’m not convinced that would be money well spent.