Google is/isn’t/might/mightn’t/will/won’t pull out of China over censorship and security concerns. Nobody really knows what the future may hold (although CEO Eric Schmidt’s forecast calls for a 99.9% chance of “something”)—including Google’s 27 Chinese ad resellers. In a letter to Google Monday, the resellers pleaded for some information.

As the home of tens of thousands of employees—a headcount they reached at Google’s behest—not to mention their clients and partners. Since Google’s announcement in January, business has dramatically dropped off (although Google has yet to make any changes). The resellers point out their dilemma (as translated by the WSJ):

There are altogether 27 Google reseller agencies for Google in China, and currently, they are all in the investment phase of Google-related business and have yet seen reasonable returns on their investment. If Google withdraws from China, then most of us will face possible bankruptcy or close-down, since up to now, as requested by Google, we have invested huge amounts of capital and efforts in our business. How will Google compensate for its resellers?

Without communication, it seems that Google’s plan may be to pay its partners with a “don’t let the door hit you on our way out.” Say the resellers:

At this moment, if Google tells us this is a business practice, and our clients, employees, and investors all should take our own commercial risks, we, as well as our clients, employees, investors and everyone absolutely will refuse to accept it!

Uhhh sure.

The WSJ notes: “Not all the resellers listed as signatories in the letter had a part in drafting it, and each has a unique relationship under different terms with Google.”

Google acknowledges they’ve received the letter and are currently reviewing it. However, they’ve been reticent to comment on the discussion that are/aren’t going on with the Chinese government, and it looks like things are grinding to a halt.

What do you think? What kind of provisions should Google make for its resellers?

According to analysts, Google’s Nexus One phone isn’t selling too well. In fact, its 135,000 units sold is way off the 1 million iPhone’s sold during its launch.

Still, there’s good news for Google. It was just denied a trademark for Nexus One, because it’s too similar to one that’s already being used by Integra Telecom.

“Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3554195,” the trademark office wrote in its March 9 ruling.

OK, so that’s not good news, but if Google decided that entering the mobile hardware business was a bad move, it now has an excuse to pull out–hey it worked for China!

Meanwhile, back in Portland, Oregon, Integra is obviously delighted with the USPTO’s decision:

“We appreciate that the PTO is protecting our trademark rights. Integra has over $60 Million in annual revenue associated with our Nexus brand and it represents millions of new revenue for the company each year. Google hasn’t contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we hope we can work together to achieve our respective business goals.”

Let me translate that last sentence for you:

Google hasn’t contacted us since the PTO issued its objection but we’re looking forward to either big fat licensing fee or being acquired by them for a ridiculous multiple!

So, what’s next for Google? It is likely too early to pull the plug on the Nexus One, but a rebranding or licensing deal is on the horizon with this decision.

(via)

Maybe I missed the point of the whole China/Google kerfluffle, but I could have sworn the reason Google was pulling out of China was because they didn’t want to obey China’s rules on censorship anymore. Apparently China has decided to conveniently ignore that fact as they remind Google to continue to obey China’s Internet rules, even if Google does decide to leave the country.

Riiight.

According to Reuters:

“On entering the Chinese market in 2007, it clearly stated that it would respect Chinese law,” the spokesman, Yao Jian, told reporters in answer to a question about Google.

Google opened its Chinese search portal in 2006.

“We hope that whether Google Inc continues operating in China or makes other choices, it will respect Chinese legal regulations,” Yao told a regular news conference.

“Even if it pulls out, it should handle things according to the rules and appropriately handle remaining issues,” he said.

Yes, of course Google should continue to obey the law for remaining “issues” within the country (possibly its other services, if Google decides to only pull its search engine). However, although I’m not in favor of China’s censorship, I don’t think Google should wage a direct Internet war against the country.

China’s admonition seems a little like a parent expecting a child to keep the same curfew when they leave the house. Google is leaving precisely because they just can’t abide those rules anymore. They’re going to live their life the way they want to now.

Or, for another analogy that might hit home a bit more with the Chinese government, maybe this is more akin to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telling China to investigate the hack attacks (to which China said Clinton damaged the countries’ relations, and basically she should mind her own business).

What do you think? Could China seriously expect to dictate to a company even if they won’t have any jurisdiction to do so?

Now here’s a great way to gather totally, completely unbiased information about a potential merger: ask the companies’ competitors. Okay, so the FTC isn’t completely crazy—of course other companies in the market would have a pretty good idea what the industry looks like and what a big merger might do. But still, we can only hope the FTC will remember to take their opinions with a grain of competitive salt.

AdMob, the popular mobile advertising company, and Google, the wanna-be-popular mobile advertising company, announced the deal in November. Google gave AdMob $750M in stock in the deal. The next month, consumer groups began lobbying against the deal. Now the FTC wants both advertisers and rivals to make sworn statements about the pending merger.

The probe isn’t public, but sources say the commission is “investigating whether Google’s proposed purchase of AdMob would reduce competition in the market for Internet advertising on mobile phones.” (Kind of a duh.) Google says it’s continuing to talk with the FTC and cooperate with requests for information.

Bloomberg consulted Thomas Ensign, an antitrust lawyer, on the matter. He said, “It’s difficult to envision a scenario where this development, if true, is positive for Google-AdMob, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the agency is going to challenge the deal.”

Just over a year ago, the US Department of Justice was hours from filing anti-trust charges against the search giant over another major advertising deal (with Yahoo). Is Google pushing their luck with this merger? Will GoogleMob hurt the mobile ad industry? Will the FTC stop the deal?

Last week, Chinese officials reported that Google was in talks about their threats to leave the country (or only partially) if they’re forced to continue censoring search results. Also, Chinese officials reported that Google was not in talks with the government.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt declined to comment on the state of negotiations a conference in the United Arab Emirates today. However, he did say that “we’re in active negotiations with the Chinese government, and there is no specific timetable,” although he promised “Something will happen soon.”

Google announced a hacking attempt targeted at the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists in January. They suspected that the attack may have originated in the Chinese government on some level, and announced they would no longer agree to censor search results. However, nothing has changed—yet.

Soon after Google’s statement, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented on the matter, urging China to review the breach as well. This prompted suspicion that Google’s withdrawal threats were directed by the US government. Schmidt denied that today:

“The Google action was not in any way advanced or coordinated with the U.S. government except post-facto,” he said in response to questions. “Google’s discussions are with the Chinese government, and they do not involve the U.S. government. The U.S. government’s doing its thing unrelated to Google.”

Schmidt’s statement is pretty open-ended: “something” and “soon.” What kind of timeline do you think we’re looking at—and what do you think the end result will be?

Have you heard of the Streisand effect?

Long story short, in 2003 Barbra Streisand sued a photographer for $50 million because he took photos of her home. She said the photographs invaded her privacy. Unfortunately for her, the rest of the world had no clue of the existence of these photographs until after she filed the lawsuit. Filing the lawsuit created a greater issue than if she had just kept quiet.

Enter Lindsay Lohan.

The almost popular, but now notsomuch, actress is suing E-Trade for, get this, $100 million for naming one of its TV babies “Lindsay.” Apparently, Miss Lohan believes that she has obtained “single name” status–like Madonna or Oprah–and that everyone that sees the milkaholic manboy-stealer will instantly think of her–and that will ruin her stellar reputation.

Says Lohan’s lawyer:

“They used the name Lindsay,” Ovadia said. “They’re using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn’t they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody’s talking about it and saying it’s Lindsay Lohan.” Ovadia wants an injunction to force the spot off the air, and the Lindsay camp wants every last copy of the commercial

Actually, no one was talking about Lindsay Lohan, until this lawsuit. Oh wait, maybe that’s the point. No one was talking about you, so file a $100M lawsuit and get everyone talking about you again!

Alternatively, why not actually make a movie that we think is good?

Flying under the radar with your affiliate income is about to get a lot harder for US tax payers. Starting next year, the IRS will be tracking all online payments made through credit, debit and electronic payment processing like PayPal. The new 1099-K form will be provided by any bank or payment settlement company operating in those areas.

Even better, these forms will include only the gross amounts—i.e. the payments made excluding any fees these companies or other intermediaries may charge—or returns, chargebacks or refunds.. As most of us well know, a payment of $100 often doesn’t translate into a profit of $100, so it will be on the merchants’ shoulders to report all fees among other business expenses.

Naturally, the IRS is worried that online merchants aren’t reporting their income, either through ignorance or willful tax evasion. Reporting forms like the W-2 and other 1099s help tax payers to know what they have to pay taxes on (um, everything) and exactly how much they earned. (It’s a heck of a lot easier than going through your records yourself, but you might still have to to get the fees.)

According to Barbara Weltman for Auction Bytes,

All merchants who accept payments through credit cards, debit cards, gift cards and PayPal will receive information returns telling them – and the IRS – the gross amount of the merchant card transactions. This will be broken down month by month. While the form uses the word “card,” the IRS has made it clear that this is interpreted broadly to include third-party network transactions (i.e., PayPal).

There is at least one loophole: if you’re just not that good an online merchant. Small merchants, making $20,000 or less in 200 or fewer transactions, will not require 1099 reporting.

Ultimately, there probably won’t be an effect if you’re already reporting your online income accurately. Will the new laws affect you?

We are SO not tax lawyers or accountants, it’s not even funny. Please consult someone who is to learn about your tax responsibilities.

Google’s big talk on pulling out of China appears to be in “perpetual beta,” as AllThingsD’s John Paczkowski jokes. According to his report, the Chinese government both confirms and denies that they are currently in talks with Google over Internet control/censorship.

China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) Vice Minister Miao Wei of told Xinhua, China’s state-run news agency, “[Google] never informed the ministry that it was planning to withdraw from China, [nor has it] filed reports over alleged Internet regulation and cyberattacks to the ministry or requests for negotiations.”

And, as AllThingsD points out, that’s especially interesting considering the day before, MIIT Minister Li Yizhong (ie Miao’s boss) told Reuters they are in negotiations with Google. AllThingsD’s sources say that both are right—Google’s in unofficial, informal talks, but hasn’t made a move to file the necessary paperwork.

Surprise, surprise, given what we’ve seen thus far.

Google’s initial promises of action were predicated on the principle that the Internet is a primary source of freedom of expression, and the Chinese government had finally gone to far in its efforts to censor how (and who) used the Internet. However, those attitudes may be uniquely American, according to data from a BBC Worldwide poll.

87% of the Chinese surveyed (vs. 78% worldwide) felt that Internet access was a “fundamental right”. (Nearly half the nearly 28,000 respondents to the survey were not Internet users.) Only 35% of the Chinese felt they could cope without the Internet (compared to 55% worldwide).

Meanwhile, 78% of those surveyed worldwide felt the Internet gave them more freedom, though only 48% felt safe in expressing opinions online, similar to the 42% of the Chinese who agreed with that statement. The PDF of the data states that “Although they are less likely to agree that the Internet should never be regulated by the government (40%), Chinese respondents are much more likely than those elsewhere to cite state censorship as their main concern related to the internet (29%).”

On some level, many of the Chinese do support the government’s censorship/control/regulation (or were afraid to say otherwise over the phone).

What do you think? Will Google pull out of China if pressed, or is this all a lot of hot air?

The verdict on the Italian YouTube court case verdict seemed pretty clear: sentencing Google execs to jail time for an invasion of privacy in a video posted (by someone else) on the UGC site was, well, “absurd,” as we said two weeks ago.

But some new evidence is coming out that may just justify at least the “guilty” verdict from the Italian court—since that’s all the Italian judge released (i.e. he didn’t publish his reasoning). According to TechDirt, there are now reports that Google may have ignored a takedown notice on the video.

…Oooooor not. While Google Translate is woefully inadequate in translating the Italian article intelligibly, it appears that the takedown requests in question (if they exist) might actually be from users—i.e. people without legal standing—via the site’s feedback form. Although that could certainly alert the company that inappropriate content had been submitted by a user, it’s a far cry from an official legal filing.

It’s also hard to tell because Google hasn’t apparently responded adequately to requests from the prosecution to provide copies of any legal takedown notices (although I believe the article says they have provided a copy of one such filing: “Google Inc. has sent not only evasive replies on the comments made [on the video page] but also on removal requests (having produced only one on that SB)”). Furthermore, the EU has no guidelines on what constitutes a sufficiently fast response to a legal takedown notice (or even a clearly defined process for filing takedown notices).

Still, it hardly makes sense to sentence executives who probably never saw any takedown notices (whether or not they were filed), didn’t abuse the child in question, didn’t tape said abuse and didn’t post the video, to jail time for invasion of privacy. TechDirt points out a fine for ignoring (or losing) a takedown notice would be a far more appropriate penalty.

What do you think? Did Google receive a takedown notice? Who should be punished, and how?

A year ago, we first covered the extortion rumblings against local review site Yelp. Business owners claimed that Yelp offered to remove negative reviews—for a price. Yelp disputed the allegations, but did add a feature for business owners to respond to negative reviews last April.

But apparently the other practices haven’t ceased, according to two suits recently filed against Yelp. Last week, a class action suit was filed in a Los Angeles federal court, and this week another suit alleging extortion by the site was filed in California as well.

The first suit,Cats and Dogs Animal Hospital Inc. v. Yelp Inc., alleges “the company’s employees call businesses demanding monthly payments in the guise of advertising contracts, in exchange for removing or modifying negative reviews.” The second suit, D’Ames Day Spa v. Yelp, makes a similar accusation, stating that Yelp removed 13 of 14 positive reviews because the spa wouldn’t buy advertising on the site.

Yelp has responded to the allegations in a blog post, “Different Day, Different Lawyer, Same Meritless Claim: A Classic Race to the Courthouse.” Yelp points to a paragraph from the suit where the spa owner says she encouraged customers to leave reviews on the site. Said Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman:

As we have explained in the past, solicited reviews, more so than naturally occurring ones, are more likely to be detected by Yelp’s review filter, which we employ to protect consumers from shill reviews and businesses from malicious reviews from competitors.

Stoppelman says they’re taking both cases seriously—but they’re both without merit and Yelp is confident they’ll prevail.

What do you think? Is Yelp extorting SMBs, or is it the other way around?

So Google’s facing an inquiry from the European Commission after accusations of anti-trust. Naturally, Google’s not taking this lying down. On the European Public Policy blog, Matt Cutts responds to allegations of anti-competitive practices by sharing their secret sauce, PageRank. But are they transparent enough?

(Yeah, the link is just the original Stanford paper on Google that discusses the basic principles of PageRank as defined 10 years ago.)

Google outlines all its efforts to help webmasters and increase its transparency, including:

• “Google has continued to publish literally hundreds of research papers over the years. Those papers reveal many of the “secret formulas” for how Google works and document essential infrastructure that Google uses.”
• “In 1999, Sergey Brin participated in the first Search Engine Strategies conference for webmasters.”
• “In 2001, Google became one of the first search engines to engage online at a publisher forum called WebmasterWorld. One representative (GoogleGuy) has posted over 2800 times, while another (AdWordsAdvisor) has posted almost 5000 times.”
• “Google now has over 70 official blogs, including an official webmaster blog specifically to help site owners understand how Google works and help them rank appropriately in our search results.”
• Live webmaster chats and in-person conferences
• Webmaster Tools

Although lots of lawsuits and disgruntled individuals claim that Google is an evil black box, the list of things they’ve done to reach out and help webmasters is impressive (even if a lot of webmasters don’t know about it)—and I just listed things till I got bored.

What do you think? Has Google made enough of an effort to be transparent and helpful? Is this an adequate defense against anti-trust allegations?

Well, if the shoe isn’t on the other foot. Once upon a time, Microsoft seemed to be the biggest threat to free trade in the computer world, facing suits across the world. And now it’s Google’s turn—and coincidentally, Microsoft certainly looks like the man behind the curtain. In fact, two thirds of voters at the Wall Street Journal think it’s Microsoft’s machinations throwing the gauntlet down at Google:

How is Microsoft doing this? Certainly not directly (pot, kettle). No—it would have to be through backroom puppetry, which Microsoft of course denies. The evidence does appear highly coincidental. The WSJ outlines one instance where Google filed a two-sentence suit against a small site owing them $335,000 for AdSense—and got a 24-page antitrust countersuit, with Microsoft’s chief outside antitrust council listed as one of the litigants.

Note, though, that this is Microsoft’s outside council: he doesn’t work for Microsoft and Microsoft alone. It’s entirely possible that the small website searched out someone who was familiar with antitrust law and actions against Google.

Meanwhile, Google is facing scrutiny in Europe, including an antitrust suit from a Microsoft subsidiary which has prompted a European Commission investigation.

Naturally, many companies and individuals are concerned about Google’s dominance. Accusations and suits seem to be coming from all quarters, including the US government. Microsoft has used a few more open tactics to wage an antitrust war. These latest volleys might not be orchestrated by Microsoft—or are they? What do you think?

The news part of this story is that the European Commission (EC) has launched an anti-trust investigation against Google. I suspect that this is heard with little surprise considering the amount of chatter recently about Google’s dominance in the marketplace. I would think it is safe to say that Google has been preparing for this day for quite some time and suspecting that the first official volley in this war would be from “across the pond” considering the EC’s apparent obsession with controlling everything with regard to the marketplace. Now, Google is being brought to task for imposing penalties on sites and allegedly being a barrier to trade.

The Telegraph tells us a little more

The investigation comes under the Lisbon Treaty’s “abuse of dominant position” powers and is the first time that Google has been targeted by the European Union.

Telegraph.co.uk can reveal that the Commission has written to Google with a series of questions over how its search functions operate and also questioned the way it sells advertising. It acted after complaints from the UK search site Foundem, a price comparison site; Ciao, an online shopping site owned by Microsoft; and ejustice.fr, a French site which details legal cases and solicitor services.

What is of interest is here is who is bringing the complaints to the forefront. Foundem has a history of going after Google and has been “exposed” in some ways as the site that cried wolf since it can be shown why Google doesn’t think the site worthy of high rankings.

The second in that list though is Ciao, which is a Microsoft owned site. Now, we may be getting to the heart of the matter. While Foundem and their complaints can be seen as whining that they should be at the front of the line despite having little or no merit for the claim, the Microsoft connection in this case gets even more complex as we learn

Ciao was bought by Microsoft in 2008 for nearly $500m (£324m) and is now called Ciao Bing, after Microsoft’s search engine. Foundem is a member of ICOMP, an internet pressure group which receives funding from Microsoft.

A spokesman for ICOMP said that it was backed by a number of companies and was only interested in promoting transparency and fair competition on the web.

Whoa there big fella! Foundem is a member of an Internet pressure group that receives funding from Microsoft? If all of this is absolutely true then this whole thing starts to smell pretty funny and the source of the stench may be traced back to Redmond, WA USA. Oh, and for the spokesman’s line of transparency and open competition on the web? C’mon, we’re not that stupid. It looks more like you are the home for wayward web whiners (is that the European version of WWW?).

Google has responded initially by stating

“We’ve always worked hard to ensure that our success is earned the right way, through technological innovation and great products, rather than by locking in our users or advertisers or creating artificial barriers to entry.”

Google went on to further note that the plight of Foundem could be better addressed if they went out and “foundem” some original content. Hey, is that a secret that Google has been keeping from us all these years? . By the way, the penalties have been lifted and Foundem is claiming that their traffic went up 10,000 percent overnight. Geesh, do these guys sell hyperbole on their site?

So while having a 90% market share in the UK is certainly something to raise an eyebrow is it because Google doesn’t let others play or is it because they have the better mousetrap AND nothing, including a Microsoft owned property, can challenge them? If you put any merit in the comments following the article neither Foundem nor Ciao nor the European Union seem to get a lot of love.

So what do you think? Monopoly by Google or manipulation by Microsoft? Do you think this will go anywhere?

Before I get into this post, let me state that I believe the ruling in Italy is absurd.

What am I talking about?

Well a case, which has been in the hands of an Italian court for over 3 years, has just come to a conclusion–and 3 Google executives have just been sentenced to 6 months of jail time for invasion of privacy.

According to Reuters…

…a Milan court has convicted three Google Inc executives for the 2006 transmission of a video showing the bullying of a youth with Down’s syndrome, the judge in the case told Reuters on Wednesday…The case stems from an incident in 2006 when students at an Italian school filmed and then uploaded a clip to Google Video showing them bullying a schoolmate with Down’s syndrome.

The video was horrible, the person that captured and uploaded it surely is the person that most people would say should face jail time, but the law is the law, right? If you do business in a country, you should obey their laws and respect their judicial system, right? After all, this is Italy, not China!

Well, Google appears to be doing everything it can to get this ruling overturned.

We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. Throughout this long process, they have displayed admirable grace and fortitude. It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all.

I hear you Google. You should appeal it, but should you also publicly criticize a country’s legal system? A country you have been making money from for the past decade? What if that ruling had been in the UK or Canada? What if it had been handed down by one of our own courts? Would you still attempt to move this from a legal court to the court of public opinion?

I’m curious to hear what you Pilgrims think about this. Feel free to debate the ruling, but I’m curious if you think Google’s post portrays a company that feels it is above the law.

Despite criticism, Google’s AdSense for Domains program still exists, and now we know why.

It’s earning close to $500 million a year for the search engine!

According to New Scientist, two researchers at Harvard University have conducted some simple calculations to come up with the estimate:

Moore and Edelman…estimate that each of the 3264 top sites is targeted by around 280 typo domains…up to 68 million people a day could visit a typo site, they say. They estimate that almost 60 per cent of typo sites could have adverts supplied by Google.

When you mix and heat at 390F for 20 minutes, you end up with a typo-squatting cake worth $497 million a year in revenue!

All done! Nothing else to discuss, right?

Well, not really. You see, one of the researchers, Benjamin Edelman, is the same Edelman serving as co-counsel on a lawsuit seeking damages for…wait for it…ads appearing on typo-squatting domains.

He says that his involvement in the suit did not influence the results of his research. "I’m not doing it for the money," Edelman says of the court action. "I’m doing it because it’s important."

And the money. The money’s nice too.

This took a little longer than I thought, but a Florida woman has filed a class action complaint in San Jose federal court alleging that Google Buzz shared personal data without consent.

The legal complaint accuses Google of breaking various electronic communications laws, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The plaintiff is seeking injunctions to prevent the company from taking similar actions in the future, and unspecified monetary relief.

Eva Hibnick and her legal team–who we won’t name, because clearly they agreed to help her for the glory of suing Google–wants to enjoin the 31.2 million U.S. Gmail users that were duped into revealing their most personal contacts.

Like all lawsuits that involve Google, don’t hold your breath. This thing is likely to be a long, protracted mess, with many appeals and objections. If nothing else, this should add to all the reasons why Google should set its arrogance aside and not assume it knows what’s best for its users.

I suspect, we’ll never see such a clumsy product launch from Google, ever again.

Google Buzz has had one heck of a first week. After not fully testing the product, Google launched Buzz and forced all Gmail users into it without a way to opt out. Then we realized they were automatically sharing the list of people we chatted with and emailed most frequently. Finally, Google backed off many of these “features,” and made it possible to disable Buzz (and not just hide it). And the angry masses aren’t the only ones—now the Canadian government is scrutinizing the service.

Valerie Lawton, a spokeswoman for the [Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada], said the office is looking into concerns about Buzz.

“We understand the public concern about privacy issues related to Google Buzz,” she said. “Our office is looking at the issue.”

They may make further comment today. However, many of Buzz’s initial problems—specifically autosharing and autofollowing the people you chat with and email, making your friend lists public and no way to opt out—have been addressed through promised (and delivered) changes. So complaints filed with the commission last week may be moot by now—or not.

Last summer, Canada took a hard look at Facebook’s privacy policies, and Facebook blinked. Will Google do the same?

Possibly more importantly, has Google (and everyone else) learned its lesson, privacy inquiry or no? Unfortunately, I doubt it. Lately the mode seems to be “roll it out first and worry about privacy, usability and . . . everything! later,” and not just for Google. Opting in to new features is becoming increasingly rare—and opting out is becoming harder. I know people are resistant to change and hesitant to try new things—but please, Google et al., don’t do this. As I said last week:

Stop. Test new features with real users. Ask for feedback. Don’t force crap on us—let us opt in, and if we like it, we’ll encourage others to opt in, too. And think about the implications before you get the negative ink and/or lawsuits, for once.

And remember, if you want out of Buzz, go to the Buzz tab in your Gmail Settings to turn it off completely. The tab hasn’t rolled out fully—I only have it in half of my accounts—but should be live for all users pretty soon.

What do you think? Will Canada find further privacy changes they want? Will Google and its ilk ever stop pushing us into “features” we don’t want?

I know it all sounds crazy, but there are legal ways to post copyrighted content on the Internet—id est when you have permission from the copyright owner. But apparently that wasn’t enough for at least one of several blogspot-hosted music blogs pulled from Google’s Blogger for allegedly violating copyright. paidContent reports:

“We’d like to inform you that we’ve received another complaint regarding your blog,” begins the cheerful letter received by each of the owners of Pop Tarts, Masala, I Rock Cleveland, To Die By Your Side, It’s a Rap and Living Ears. All of these are music blogs – sites that write about music and post MP3s of what they are discussing. “Upon review of your account, we’ve noted that your blog has repeatedly violated Blogger’s Terms of Service … [and] we’ve been forced to remove your blog. Thank you for your understanding.”

Naturally, the letter doesn’t specify who the complaint came from—but it shouldn’t be the record labels. Why not? Because, according to Bill Lipold of I Rock Cleveland in a complaint to Google, “everything I’ve posted for, let’s say, the past two years, has either been provided by a promotional company, came directly from the record label, or came directly from the artist.”

That’s right: many labels and recording artists don’t fear the reaper Internetz—and have realized blogs are a powerful tool for promotion. In fact, they’re spending major money on attracting these very bloggers. You’d think that’d trickle down to the legal departments, but Lipold documents four times in the last year he’s received DMCA takedown notices for songs that he had explicit permission to post.

Rick Klau of Google responded to complaints last night, saying the bloggers in question could file DMCA counter-claims if they actually had permission to post the files. Which is great, if Google had a convenient DMCA counter-claim form, as it does a DMCA claim form (which includes a “good faith” checkbox: “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”).

Instead, Google gives detailed instructions on how to complete a paper-and-snail-mail counter-claim (so they have no idea whether these bloggers would do that—and they have already taken down years of archives). However, step one is to “Identify the specific URLs or other unique identifying information of material that Google has removed or to which Google has disabled access.” Considering that the bloggers weren’t informed which song offended (if any—it could just be a cumulative crackdown), and the fact that the URLs are no longer accessible, a counter-claim might just be impossible.

Naturally, not all sites posting possibly copyrighted files, legally or illegally, have been affected, and not all of those taken down may be as innocent as I Rock Cleveland.

One spot of good news: years ago, I had a similar problem. For no apparent reason (not even a DMCA request), Google deleted my personal blog. All the archives were gone. I contacted Google, and they soon restored my blog entirely. So maybe the blogs aren’t gone (though the offending files may already be removed from servers).

What do you think? Can Google stop the music? Should there be some sort of penalty for record labels’ internal failures to communicate?

Photo by Nicole Marti

I can hear it now. We normal folks won’t be able to hear this signal (kind of like a dog whistle) but this is being sounded across the US to Washington, DC from Mountain View, CA as we speak.

“Calling all ex-Google employees in DC! Calling all ex-Google employees in DC! (Especially if you still have stock) I repeat – Calling all ex-Google employees in DC! This is your real leader, Eric Schmidt, and we need you to ‘talk’ to some people about this ‘problem’ that the US government has with our book deal. Remember where your allegiance is and who is more powerful. Go and do your duty for the Goog immediately. Thanks and have a great day!”

OK, so it really is a ridiculous thought but I bet the folks at Google wish that could happen when a road block like this happens to a deal that seems quite important to one of the most powerful companies in the world. Sfgate.com tells us

The Department of Justice said in a filing late Thursday that revisions to the proposed legal settlement allowing Google Inc. to publish millions of books online didn’t do enough to allay antitrust, copyright and other legal concerns.

The landmark deal would allow the Mountain View search titan to move ahead with its ambitious project while establishing a system for identifying and paying appropriate rights holders.

The government acknowledged “substantial progress” on several issues, but said in a statement filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that core concerns remain unresolved, including the amount of power granted to Google.

There is quite a bit at stake with this book deal for sure and there are those who are both for and against. Those against include library groups, academics and competitors who have privacy and anti-competitive concerns. Those for the deal include student, minorities and the disabled because the service would provide the ability to access more information than ever.

Google is doing an “act as if” and not really publicly recognizing this decision that could influence whether this gets past the government’s scrutiny or not. This whole drama has been two years in the making and Google has had a similar battle in Europe. Whether this will ever reach the point of an agreement that allows Google to do what is proposed for many out of print volumes is a major TBD (to be determined).

Google keeps running precariously close to the line that reads “If crossed people will yell monopoly!” I suspect they would like just one victory but whether that will happen in this case may be more out of their control than usual.

How do you feel about this book agreement? Have you followed it? Do you care? If Google gets the green light is it truly giving them to much power? If they can’t do it will any of these books ever be seen again by anyone?

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, or a heart-warming story of a bad guy that’s now fighting evil?

Social network Tagged.com has been the subject of many email spamming complaints in its life. Now the company has been awarded $210,975 in a default judgment against a spammer.

In a ruling issued earlier this week, a U.S. District Court Judge in the northern district of California found Vogeler guilty of sending messages to 6,079 Tagged users and assessed damages of $25 per violation for a total of $151,975. Court also ordered Vogeler to pay Tagged $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and to cease sending commercial emails through Tagged.com.

That money will go a long way towards covering the $750,000 in fines the company had to cough up in November of last year.

Is this a case of no honor among thieves or has Tagged.com turned over a new leaf?