Nice site. Mind if I steal it?

Like taking steak from a wolf, stealing from a law firm seems a tad dangerous.    Via LegalMatch law blog, the Law.com story of a Florida firm which discovered an unknown British counterpart lifting its website wholesale.

The aggrieved Florida firm, Gordon & Doner, is apparently a well-known personal injury firm.  The offending party allegedly lifted the design and photos of Gordon & Doner, making some changes but leaving the bulk of the site unchanged.  An attorney at Gordon & Doner discovered the chicanery after doing a search for himself and finding his doppelganger at a British law firm in Manchester, England.  Gordon & Doner has filed action against the host of the offending site, GoDaddy.com, as well as the yet-undetermined British party.

The motivation to do something so stupid is a mystery.  While only a law firm would seemingly have the incentive to build a site by stealing from another law firm, could a firm in a profession as risk-adverse as the legal profession actually be so reckless?

Gordon & Doner’s attorney for this matter, Michael Slavin of McHale & Slavin, has apparently speculated that the copying may have been done to game Gordon & Doner’s ranking on Google.  But why take the trouble to host the site in England?

If it is a law firm that is ultimately found to be the culprit, it obviously is a little light on intellectual property expertise.

(Hat tip: Nils Montan)

UPDATE: Gordon & Doner has dropped the case after uncovering the apparent motives for this unusual identity threat.  According to this March 3 press release, Gordon & Doner had initiated litigation against the unknown perpetrators and host GoDaddy, only to determine that the perpetrator had used an alleged stolen credit card traced back to Nigeria.  The sham corporation behind the fraudulent website, Gentleiyke LLC, had also been the owner of several domain names hosting other fraudulent sites, all of which had been shutdown.

According to attorney Michael Slavin, who represented Gordon & Doner in the matter, the motive for the theft appeared to be one of adding legitimacy to an international scheme involving internet users, perhaps even to entice potential litigants to employ fraudulent lawyers.

“[I]t is our hope that no one in the general public was harmed,” said Slavin.

Pornographic movies are presumably easy to produce and write, so the porno industry is now being hit from both ends – battling a growing army of free content providers while simultaneously fending off the standard piracy threat so pervasive with other forms of online content.  Presumably, consumers of smut will want to pay for “quality” branding as a means of wading through unappealing amateur content.  If porn actors are like rock stars, the branding could include live appearances or, more likely, increased emphasis on endorsements for the stars.  In this case (as is the case in music labels and newspapers), it is the middle-man in the content production chain who faces the most pressure from internet market forces.

(Hat Tip: Drudge)

Buttressing his argument with statistics from his experience of charging for content with the Democrat-Gazette, Hussman compares the success of newspapers who charge for content versus those who do not. The numbers are compelling. Expounding on his earlier column in The Wall Street Journal, Hussman made a strong case that newspapers would fail to offset revenue lost in declining print circulation with revenue generated from online visitors. Citing the Inland Cost and Revenue Study, Hussman claimed that newspapers generate between $500 and $900 in revenue per subscriber per year, versus $5 to $10 per unique visitor per year.

These numbers tell only part of the story. Hussman then compared circulation figures for the Democrat-Gazette with the Columbus Dispatch. The Columbus Dispatch and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette are the sole mainstream dailies in their respective markets, both of which are similarly-sized state capitals. The difference between the two newspapers? The Dispatch switched to a free content model on Jan. 1, 2006. In its first six months of offering free content, the Columbus Dispatch’s daily circulation declined 5.8%, compared with a loss of 0.4% daily for the Democrat-Gazette. This comparison reflects national trends for newspapers that have decided to offer their content for free. Under Hussman’s analysis, it is difficult to see why any newspaper would offer its content for free.

However, there are real world problems with Hussman’s analysis. Most notably, Hussman’s strategy seems to require either establishing a dominant market position on local news gathering (i.e., the Democrat-Gazette in Little Rock), or serving a compelling product to a niche with disposable income (i.e., The Wall Street Journal to financiers). No less a robust content provider than The New York Times felt compelled to abandon its subscription model, hemmed in by the reality that it is neither a commanding local voice nor a provider of exquisite niche content. The evidence cited by Hussman suggests two possible strategies for newspapers going forward: first, to leverage local market power on news by charging for local content, which is difficult for larger publications with a national focus to replicate successfully. Under this model, national news offered on web sites would be posted for free, as such news is easily found elsewhere. Second, if local market power is not lucrative or too difficult to attain (such as in New York City), then obtaining a special niche or specialty would be the preferred strategy, perhaps with a component of local news. If local news is niche content that people will pay for, then large city dailies without dominant market positions might consider purchasing the smaller neighborhood newspapers, establishing neighborhood dominance to leverage for paid readership. Without establishing some kind of dominant market power, a newspaper in a multi-daily metropolis would find itself compelled to offer free online content, as any price charged would be immediately undercut by its competition. And web content does earn some money for the newspaper. Just not nearly enough.

Hussman’s arguments harken back to the early days of the dotcom boom, when the conventional wisdom was to spend money to obtain dominant online market positions. Once obtained and with hard-earned goodwill, the dotcom would finally be able to earn a return on all of the capital initially invested. The logic worked out well for some (ebay and Amazon), but failed more often than not. With control of the local Little Rock market and comparatively strong circulation, Hussman has found that it is good to be the last man standing.

Critics of the leviathans Microsoft and Google might have a difficult time in determining who they should have rooted for in the battle to win a stake in Facebook: the semi-monopolistic Microsoft, so long considered the bane of smaller and more innovative companies, or Google, the dominant and innovative search engine giant that has been cited as having an “entrenched hostility to privacy” by Privacy International?

(Hat tip: Matthias).

Would wonder whether a more effective metric would be to statistically isolate the effects of online advertising and pay for that?  Could it be done?

As far as I know, I have not been the victim of any online stalking, solicitations, identity theft, or threats of violence so concerning to Andrew Cuomo and his staff.  Of course, I don’t look like a teenage girl, either.

Another endangered species: journalists. Despite the proliferation of media outlets, newspapers, where the bulk of U.S. reporters work, will cut costs and jobs as the Internet replaces print. While current events will always need to be covered (we hope), the number of reporting positions is expected to grow by just 5% in the coming decade, the Labor Department says. Most jobs will be in small (read: low-paying) markets.

And broadcast journalists aren’t immune to this trend, either:

Radio announcers will have a tough time, too. Station consolidation, advances in technology and a barren landscape for new radio stations will contribute to a 5% reduction in employment for announcers by the middle of the next decade.

The writing is on the wall at Columbia Journalism School, where, according to one professor, even senior print faculty are stressing the need for all students to learn web skills. Ironically, some print students are more resistant to this emphasis than the professors, apparently fearing the technological learning curve or perhaps clinging to obsolete romanticisms of the profession.

The internet has changed the journalism economic model, with bloggers supplying content that journalists had previously charged for in print publication. At work here is the tragedy of the commons – bloggers and citizen journalists typically use news unearthed by professional journalists without compensation, republishing and repackaging the original news items with opinion. Each republishing and repackaging of the original reported content reduces the demand for the actual original form of the content – much like the case in the music industry and file-shared songs. With most news organizations losing money, the issue is whether an economic model can be developed to encourage reporting despite the lack of financial incentives to report. For even if intellectual property law developed in a way in which reported facts are protected by copyright, journalists would then only stand with musicians, trying to establish the fame necessary to generate ancillary income from (reporting) gigs that generate so little revenue of its own. By emphasizing New Media, Columbia Journalism School is trying to give its students the skills necessary to be one-man bands – to report and produce content in a variety of mediums for distribution over the internet. Each journalist would then be a hybrid – a reporter/publisher/producer/writer/techie – to varying degrees. To bring the analogy one step further, Columbia Journalism School is one step closer to making the logical yet startling concession – that traditional newspapers will wither like record companies, increasingly irrelevant distributors of content in the online world.

(Hat Tip: Instapundit).