Newspapers Who Relied On Bebo Party Report Sued For Defamation

from the fact-checking?-who-does-that-any-more? dept

Back in May there were a series of stories that made the rounds concerning a British girl who had her 16th birthday party at her parents pricey estate in Spain. The stories, based on the girl's own account on the social network Bebo claimed that she had posted an invite to various social networks, and tons of people showed up and it turned into a violent drunken mess. In an age of "oh no, look at what those crazy kids are doing on social networks!" reporting, the press had a field day talking about it.

There was just one problem: much of the story was apparently made up by the girl.

Now the mother of the girl is suing six newspapers for writing the story (found via Slashdot). There are a lot of questions raised by this. The woman's daughter spread the story herself -- so if the mother has a complaint, you would think it's with the daughter. But, at the same time, what kind of newspaper reports on something like that based on a single first-person account of the 16-year-old hosting the party, rather than getting any kind of fact check confirmation?

Still, it seems like some of the questions being drawn from this are going in the wrong direction. The article reports:

The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites. Mrs Hudson not only denies the allegations but accuses the newspapers of misusing information posted by her daughter on the Bebo site, saying there was no legitimate public interest in publishing material from the site. Mrs Hudson says that, because the information was inaccurate, the papers cannot rely on the defence of fair comment.

Her solicitor, David Price, said the case raised important issues of libel, privacy and copyright in relation to the unauthorised use of material taken from social networking sites.

That threatens to be quite chilling. If you can't republish direct quotes from someone who was at an event, it would seem to be quite stifling. I recognize this is in the UK, which has much stricter libel laws, but it still sounds like it might be going too far. As for the "copyright" claim, that's the most questionable of all. Claiming that the fact that her daughter's own account was incorrect means that "fair comment" is no longer allowed is ridiculous. If you're quoting someone for news purposes, the copyright issue shouldn't depend on whether or not the person you're quoting is lying.

Filed Under: defamation, fact checking, parties, reporting, social networks, uk
Companies: bebo

It's Not Exploitation If You Chose To Take Part

from the repeat-after-me dept

Well, the buzz of the weekend seems to be around a New York Times op-ed by musician Billy Bragg upset about the sale of Bebo to AOL earlier this month. Bragg's complaint is an old one that we've heard before: Because musicians chose to put their music on Bebo and that helped attract users, don't they deserve some of the $850 million that Bebo got from AOL. Not surprisingly, Nick Carr, who has been pushing this obviously false notion that "user-generated content" is exploitation, comes to Bragg's defense with his usual technique: sound smart, make some interesting points, and then wrap it up with a conclusion that is in absolutely no way supported by the facts.

Let's break this down. The first complaint is that somehow Bebo was "using" this music for "free." This is false. There was a fair trade in an open marketplace that made this happen. Bebo offered musicians a chance to promote themselves (for free) to its community. Musicians accepted this offer, and in exchange, provided their music for free. No one was forced into it. No one was compelled to do it. If either party felt the other was unfair they could choose not to engage in the trade -- and they could also vocally complain. In fact, Bragg did just that when he felt MySpace's terms were unfair, and they changed them. So by choosing to accept Bebo's terms, clearly they were perfectly acceptable. It was a fair trade.

Bragg goes on to assert: "The musicians who posted their work on Bebo.com are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise. Their investment is the content provided for free while the site has no liquid assets. Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend." Actually, they're very different from investors. Investors made a very different trade. They traded money for equity. Again, it was the fair and open market that allowed that. If Bragg had wanted to trade music for equity, he should have discussed it before... not after. You can be sure that any investors in Bebo didn't ask to change the terms of the deal after the buyout went through.

Complaining after the fact about what happened is like selling a bunch of wood to a builder for a few thousand dollars, and then complaining when he turns that into a million dollar house. Was the wood seller exploited? No. He made the fair trade, and the builder was then free to do what he wanted.

Nick Carr's response to all of this is especially wrong. He writes: "When challenged in this way, the plantation owners counter that they are doing musicians a favor by providing them with a place to promote their work." That is incorrect in so many ways it would take another whole post to get through them all. But let's take the simple point: no one is saying they are doing musicians "a favor." They are saying that there's a fair trade. You give music, we give promotion. No favors at all.

Carr and Bragg go on to use radio as an example, noting that it pays royalties, so why shouldn't social networking sites. This is incorrect for a variety of reasons. First, in the US at least, radios do not pay musicians royalties. This was a decision made by the government that since musicians benefit from airplay, no royalties are needed for the musicians (other royalties are paid for composers and publishers). However, much more to the point was that for most of the history of popular music, those royalties have been meaningless -- as record labels went through all sorts of contortions to have the money go in the other direction. What's sometimes called "payola" has gone on for years, with the record labels effectively bribing radio stations to get music on the air -- recognizing that the promotional value greatly outweighed the royalties coming in.

In other words, a free market will let the benefits to both sides balance out. If payment needs to even up one side, then the market will determine that. But, many musicians made a fair trade decision to take up the offer that Bebo made. It's their own fault if they feel they got the short end of the stick, but they clearly were happy to go along with the deal originally. Buyer's remorse and sour grapes are no excuse. If anything, this sounds quite similar to Doug Morris' ridiculous belief that no one else can make money.

To understand this most simply, it goes back to the psychological explanation we discussed earlier this year, where relevancies matter. People dislike seeing someone else made much better off, even if they are better off themselves. These musicians felt they were better off by using Bebo, but they're now upset that Bebo's founders are relatively better off than they are at the end of the deal. It's a weird world when someone would prefer to be worse off, rather than seeing someone else be even better off. In the meantime, if you'd like to read an ongoing debate between Billy Bragg, myself, Tim Lee and Joe Weisenthal, check out the post on Joe's blog where we all discuss this in the comments.

Filed Under: billy bragg, copyright, music, nicholas carr, royalties, social networks
Companies: bebo

AOL Realizes Way Too Late That AIM Should Have Been A Social Network

from the catching-up-four-years-late dept

As social networks like Friendster and then MySpace first came to prominence in the 2003/2004 time frame, we wondered why the big players (AOL/Yahoo/Microsoft) in the instant messaging space didn't recognize that those instant messaging networks were better social networks than the networks. Whereas most social networks had little to do once you connected, most people used instant messaging to communicate all the time. Those instant messaging systems already knew who all your "friends" were, and it shouldn't be that hard to then take that information and convert it into a more standard social network, with instant messaging features built right in. Yet, nothing really happened. Yahoo and Microsoft made some half-hearted attempts at social networking with little success, keeping them mostly separate from their vibrant instant messaging networks. Now, it appears that AOL has finally woken up and realized this possibility, but since it's so late to the game, it's decided to just buy Bebo for $850 million and integrate it with AIM.

While $850 million is less than was earlier rumored, and suggests that Bebo's growth rate isn't as strong as it would like, the site does have plenty of users (mostly in the UK). When I was over in the UK a few months ago, everyone was talking about Bebo the way people talk about Facebook here. That said, linking AIM to Bebo in a way that gets people interested may be difficult. There's certainly a bit of social network fatigue going on these days, and it seems as though people are beginning to wonder why they should join yet another social network unless it really provides something different and compelling than the last social network. Yes, AOL should be turning AIM into a social network, but they should have done it four years ago when it still made sense. As it stands, this seems likely to go nowhere fast -- especially with the cloud over AOL's future strategy.

Filed Under: acquisitions, instant messaging, social networks
Companies: aol, bebo, time warner

Internet Again Blamed For Suicides

from the ignoring-the-real-issue dept

Northern Ireland's health minister has apparently met with social-networking site Bebo, mobile phone operator Vodafone and Google to ask them what they're going to do to help stop the growing number of teen suicides there. He says the suicide rate in Northern Ireland has grown significantly over the last year, and "the internet has been cited as a contributory factor in some cases." Certainly a growth in teen suicides deserves some action, but a more prudent step to take would be to examine the root causes of the problem, rather than taking the easy way out and blaming the internet. It's not clear what the minister wants of Vodafone, but it would seem pretty safe to assume he wants Bebo and Google to try and block or limit posts and information about suicide, as has been done before. Again, this seems rather pointless and a way to just distract people from the real, underlying issues that are causing suicides. Furthermore, some people think that trying to force suicide-related content offline can actually lead to more suicides. Blaming the internet for suicides, then working to get suicide-related content offline, is nothing more than attempting to gloss over the problem -- and shouldn't be mistaken for actually doing anything about it.

Filed Under: internet, suicides
Companies: bebo, google, vodafone