The Prior Art

NYT's Jason Pontin on Google: swing and a miss.

Since I’m already bashing my own industry, I thought I'd comment on this ridiculous commentary on Google by New York Times columnist Jason Pontin that came to my attention today. 

In a two-minute clip, Pontin manages to be wrong on about five different levels. It’s hard for me to believe that someone who edits a technology magazine would have a view of the Internet economy that’s so simplistic and flat. To wit:

“Google is like a gigantic parasite that hollows out existing businesses.”

Google is just a service provider, albeit a dominant one. Its search abilities rest on top of an almost infinitely efficient distribution system for information. They’re in the business of distributing and sorting, not producing, content produced by the media. Calling Google a parasite makes about as much sense as Pontin running out of his office at Technology Review and screaming at the truck driver who deliver his magazines. I mean, isn’t that guy a “parasite” as well? He doesn’t produce anything, after all. He costs more than Google, too.

“They hollowed out the existing classified business.”

Google doesn’t have classified ads. Blame craigslist.

“Then they began to hollow out the existing news businesses.”

No, the news business started giving itself away for free, because it didn’t have any other choice. If you don’t want Technology Review to be “hollowed out,” then keep Google out, or insist that users pay for your content. It didn’t work out for the New York Times, but hey, give it a go. (It still works for some parts of the legal press).

Then he gets to his real gripe: online ads don’t pay him as much as the print ads. He doesn't get enough money. Well, arguably the advertisers had been paying too much for print ads, and are enjoying a more efficient market. In any case, they have a lot more options.

“In the long run, that’s bad for Google. Unless they can find some way that I can have some value to attach to this incredibly expensive enterprise of creating clever, thoughtful, groundbreaking content, they’re not going to have anything to live parasitically off forever.”

It's true--good journalism is expensive. But newspaper stock prices are only dropping because investors don't see the monopoly profits of yesteryear. Ousted LA Times editor Jon Carroll told the New York Review of Books that if the new boss was willing to take 10 to 15 percent profit margins--extraordinary in most businesses--the paper would be a journalistic "juggernaut."

Essentially, Google is a "parasite" because it’s harder for Pontin to make money. The new media universe is tough, and there’s a lot more competition. But competition is generally a good thing, especially in the information business.  Pontin may have successfully isolated himself from those pressures, since Technology Review is owned by a non-profit, MIT.

But as he points out, Google doesn’t make any content. Pontin's ad dollars have been competed away, and he’s shooting the messenger. Pontin is a smart guy and I like his writing in the Times, but here he sounds like a sore loser who has had two magazines die on his watch.

SF Chronicle on RIAA lawsuits: swing and a miss.

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle fronts the Business section with a piece on the RIAA lawsuits, focusing on a UC Santa Cruz student who has received one of the many thousands of pre-litigation letters sent out by the record companies.

In these dark days for the newspaper business, lots of editors are spending time figuring out how to capture the attention of younger readers. I can’t understand why they wouldn’t pay more attention to the RIAA litigations over music downloads. It’s an issue every young person in the country is at least aware of, and whatever side you come down on, it certainly strikes me as a novel and newsworthy story. But the newspapers haven’t covered it much, and it’s no wonder they’re having their lunch eaten by online coverage from sites like Wired's Threat Level blog and Ars Technica.

Not coincidentally, the coverage in those outlets is far more skeptical of the RIAA’s actions. The Chron’s writer, Verne Kopytoff, certainly lets the accused student have her say here, but the article is missing an important adjective (or two) in its broad description of peer-to-peer networks. Take this passage (emphasis mine):

The crackdown is part of a broader, yearslong effort by the association to curb online music sharing, a wildly popular practice that allows consumers to download music for free through online services Limewire, Ares and Gnutella. Called peer-to-peer, or P2P, networks, the services allow users to tap into and download songs from other users' collections. Adhering to copyright laws is left up to the users.

Music companies complain that file sharing, which violates copyright laws, is cutting into their profits, and they point to falling album sales as evidence.

All file sharing? Like, the Word documents I send to my editor? It would have been easy to specify that it was illegal file sharing that violates copyright laws. Legal uses of peer-to-peer technology are growing by the day. Consider Vuze, which uses the BitTorrent protocol to move high-definition video quickly and legally over the Internet, including TV programs from CBS-owned Showtime.

As a journalist, I appreciate the bind of having a very short amount of space to explain a complex idea. But this is just too vague; a little specificity--indeed, just one extra word--would have gone a long way. And of course "file sharing" is not synonymous with "music sharing," but, one thing at a time.

What should parents and students do about the dangers of file-sharing? The Chron’s tip box says, “Don’t share you (sic) computer with others."

That's a sad conclusion to reach. But maybe I'm biased. I confess to a long and complicated relationship with tip boxes and the editors who love them.

Having said all that, I give the Chron points credit for at least covering the story, which got over 100 comments despite the fact that it was buried deep in their Web site.

The most interesting fact was this: even though she has not yet been sued, an unnamed collection agency has already called her parents urging them to pay up. Urging someone to accept a particular settlement offer sounds more like legal advice than debt collection, and I wonder how that squares with the federal debt collection law. Allowing someone to try to collect a $3,000 "debt" and then asking for much more at a trial sounds like getting two bites at the apple.

Change in the New Year

I recently accepted a position at IP Law & Business magazine. Started just a few days ago.

I'll continue to cover IP issues, and am still based in San Francisco.

While I'll continue to maintain this blog, the focus will change going forward. I'll continue to reflect on IP issues, but the blog will likely broaden and I'll write about some non-IP issues, including my thoughts on the 2008 election coverage, journalism generally, and a certain television show that will be an important part of my life for the next 10 weeks.

My new professional email is jmullin@alm.com; for personal matters please use joemullin@gmail.com.

Hope everyone's doing well in the new year!