I was reading Tweeting for Twouble by Patricio Robles over at eConsultancy. It recaps a couple of stories from the past week including a very interesting one out of Arkansas about a juror who sent out a couple of updates via Twitter about the case he was hearing. Included in those not infamous Tweets:

So, Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money!

and the real killer…

Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It’s bad mojo, and they’ll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter

In that case the defendant lost and was ordered to pay $12 million dollars. He is now appealing that verdict based on a claim of juror misconduct regarding the Tweets…and he’ll probably get it. Then both sides have to pay their lawyers to do this all over again.

As interesting as that is…

…that’s not what caught my attention in the story. It was, in fact, a comment by Robles toward the end. What was said? I’m glad you asked!

Obviously this isn’t Twitter’s fault; Twitter is just a tool.

Really? This isn’t Twitter’s fault? Why not?

If I remember correctly, Napster was just a tool that helped users find other users that had files they were interested in. Yes, it was used most often for sharing music files BUT SO WHAT! The point is the files were never in the posession of Napster, in fact the file exchange actually happened via a peer-to-peer connection between the two users. And yet Napster was found to be “liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright; and … for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright¹.” Twitter actually stores the messages and THEN forwards them. Beyond the title of the file being shared, Napster didn’t know anything about the content of the file while Twitter stores and indexes the content of the updates it sends out.

I’ve made a similar argument before that Napster was really no different that Xerox and JVC (with the VCR) yet neither of them were shut down for enabling anonymous users to violate the copyright of original producers. Why not? If Napster can be found guilty of “vicarious infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright” how is it that Xerox and every other copier company cannot? (hint: better lawyers maybe?)

Don’t get me wrong, I love Twitter and I don’t think they’ve done anything wrong in the cited case. I just want to point out the obvious double standard that has been applied. And now that there is money on the line over this case, and others, will someone start looking at Twitter the same way they looked at Napster?

¹A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I was sitting around tonight thinking about this whole making money online niche and something occurred to me…we’re working really hard to re-invent the wheel here! The very first rule of retail is this…if nobody is buying, I’m not making any money! The same rule applies online!

Look, if you owned a brick and mortar business you would do retail one of two ways. The first way is to be everything to everybody, always have what the customer is looking for. I’ll call that the Wal-Mart way. Alternatively, you could focus on a very small segment of the business and be very specialized. I’ll call that the Kiwi Stand way. These are not new principles, they are time tested over hundreds of years.

The real irony here is that because we’ve switched from brick and mortar to click based retail, we thing all those principles don’t apply any more. We’ve even introduced a new “principle” that I haven’t quite named yet. It mainly consists of standing there proclaiming yourself to be an expert at something and pointing people in “the way they should go.” Its kinda like the homeless guy giving me home buying tips. Wait…THAT’S IT! The Homeless Way!

Wal-Mart didn’t start out as the largest retailer on the face of the planet. They started small just like everyone else. They got to where they are by huge volume and taking advantage of suppliers. I mean come on. Don’t most mom & pop store owners have to ask their suppliers what a widget costs? Wal-Mart gets to tell their suppliers what they will be paid for the widget…and the suppliers are so desperate for Wal-Mart’s business (i.e. validation) that they agree…whatever the price.

Now the kiwi stand guy is willing to pay a little extra for his kiwi because he want the best. He is willing to invest in providing the best, most specific product his customer is looking for. In return he is rewarded with customers who are willing to pay a little more to get exactly what they are looking for. The kiwi stand owner is also the most likely to help out the store owner around the corner because he knows the value of a good relationship with fellow retailers.

And then there are the Homeless guys, who have neither the most, nor the best…hell, no product at all…but he knows where everything is and has no problem telling you where to get the best kiwi…for a dollar! Oh, and he know about all the fruits too so there’s no reason to ask anyone else…he is the final authority.

So what? What does this have to do with blogging or making money online?

Well, I’ll tell ya. If you haven’t already figured it out, I’m going to draw some parallels between these retail principles and bloggers.

First, the Wal-Mart’s of the blogging world, yep you guessed it. These are the John Chow’s of the blogosphere and his ilk. Doing massive volume and taking advantage of everyone that crosses their path. And while you may find a few really good items in the inventory, they are the exception. Most of it is just crap, and for some reason, people keep going back to get refills of the same crap!

Next, we have the Homeless bloggers like Caroline Middlebrook. No real experience, no real product, just self-proclaimed experts who, for just $99.95, will tell you everything you need to know to get where they are! (which, by the way, you’re probably already there!)

Finally, we have what I want to be, the Kiwi Stand Guy. If you’ve ever been to or lived in NYC for any amount of time, you’ll get this. Vic from BloggerUnleashed would be a perfect Kiwi Stand Vendor in NYC! You’re laughing but am I wrong? (“Hey, ya need a friggin kiwi?”) Vic along with Griz (How to Make Money Online) and Court (Internet Marketing) round out the Three Wise Men of Internet Marketing in my book.

I’ve been trying to get started making money online for well over a year and in the past six weeks of listening to the Three Wise Men of Internet Marketing, now I’m actually making some progress. Not a millionaire (yet, maybe never) but lets just say the months of $0.90 AdSense are over!

Vic, the vlogs are the best and it’s like I said in some comment the other day. Your stuff is golden but sometimes its like trying to get a drink from a fire hose! I’m glad I can go back and play them again. Thanks for all you’ve done for me and for the rest of the blogging community!

Court, you are the keyword master! Your latest on Keyword Sniping was actually a real encouragement to me, you know, finding out that even the master can get sandboxed! Thanks man!

Griz, wow, talk about pay it forward! Not only do you make it seem so simple, you’ve got no problem sharing and helping us noobs get started. You are one of the good guys.

If you don’t read these three blogs and you want to make money online, you should quit now. You may make a little money, but you’ll starve before you make any real income.

If you read these guys you will now understand my retail analogy and the Kiwi Stand.

You don’t have to have 100,000 customers a day that come in, look around, and leave. You just need the 10 or 20 who come in and BUY a kiwi! (remember…if they don’t buy, I don’t make any money?) Oh, and you need a couple of thousand cheap fruit stands that sell what people want to buy (kiwi, oranges, limes…whatever) on the the streets where Wal-Mart won’t bother to go.

Blog on Three Wise Men of Internet Marketing…and thanks!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.