I wrote a quick throwaway about "the Induce Act" yesterday - mostly because I didn't like the fact that Tucows had been singled out in the article as a possible infringer of this pending legislation. "Hrm." was the sum total of my comment on the pience. This brief comment was directly mostly at the bill itself, but in a small way, also at CNET. I thought it was kind of cheap for them use their soapbox to single out a competitor as being an infringer under this bill without also recognizing that their own service, Download.com, was probably just as likely to be effected by the legislation.
CNET News.com, ZDNet & Silicon.com: "Websites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients such as the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement."
I chalked it up to being some sort of oversight rooted in the artistic freedom that all writers have and moved on with my day.
This morning, I got this email from one of my regular readers;
"It's funny that News.com, Silicon.com and ZDNet (all CNet) all reference Tucows as a possible violator ...
Read this, then google the phrases used to find out who the evil web site is."
Okay, I'll play.
Here's the most relevant excerpt from the Hatch press release...
"And imagine the poor parent who tries to tell a teenager that free downloading of copyrighted music is illegal. The teenager, confused because "everyone is doing it," consults a leading technology-news site promising a "trusted source of information for millions of technology consumers." There, the teenager finds a P2P distributor promoting "Morpheus 4.0, the only American filesharing software ruled legal by a U.S. federal court." This statement is false: Grokster did not rule Morpheus "legal"; in fact, the case only confirmed that downloading copyrighted works is illegal. Below this misinformation, the teenager will find an independent editorial review rating Morpheus 4.0 as a "Recommended" download and "an excellent choice" for those seeking "the latest and greatest." Who will the teenager believe?"
There are two phrases in this excerpt that are likely to uncover who the original source is:
- Phrase #1 "Morpheus 4.0, the only American file sharing software ruled legal by a U.S. federal court."
- Phrase #2 "trusted source of information for millions of technology consumers"
Google result for phrase #1: CNET Download.com
Google result for phrase #2: CNET.com
It comes from a CNET press release tagline...
"CNET.com is a trusted source of information for millions of consumers around the world that are interested in enhancing their lifestyles with today's cutting-edge consumer electronics and digital technology products. CNET.com's team of expert editors produces unbiased labs-driven editorial product reviews on the latest products in all categories. These reviews are enhanced by 360-degree photos of products, real-time pricing, and editorial features such as CNET Digital Living that help consumers find products that fit their lifestyle."
Fittingly, this tagline goes to great length to convince the reader of their unbiased editorial product reviews.
Which leaves me with one final thought I'd like to pass on;
Hrm.
After reading the quote "Websites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients such as the Morpheus software" a few times, I can see how non techies may get the idea that Tucows is part of/involved with Morpheus as they "host peer-to-peer clients". Even technically, it isn't correct.
I think it is irresponsible journalism for them to not disclose they own download.com when they mention "websites such as Tucows".
ergh. I hadn't even thought of it from *that* angle. It is definitely the case that we're not home to any filesharing networks!!
Ross, have you contacted CNet about this at all or are they just going to hide behind their artistic license and not write a followup to this or something. Probably doesn't matter anyway. Googling on the topic probably has your weblog post there somewhere for people to read.
I wouldn't say they are hiding - I'm not even sure that they have done anything wrong, just suspicious. I like to think that Declan is a square guy and this isn't due to some intentional act. And to be fair, I haven't tried to contact anyone about this - so its not like they are ducking my questions or avoiding my calls! :)
This is definitely a "food for thought" type of piece intended to let people draw their own conclusion in lieu of me drawing one.