« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »
January 17, 2010
Public Librarian Complains About Phone to Phone Inc.
I continue to get emailed complaints about Phone to Phone Inc. A recent email (as usual, posted with permission):
_________
[begin third party email]
Many thanks for your exposure of Phone2Phone. I manage a public library website and we have gotten emails and phone calls from various websites which have the mailing address 1 International Blvd, Mahwah, New Jersey, including Chessboss.com, Science.org, and Hospital.com. Under 'about us', Hospital.com mentions 4 affiliate sites: Physician.com, Pathology.org, Medicalschool.org and Disease.com. None of these medical sites lists any writers' names or credentials, legitimate organizational affiliations, or authoritative advisory board (or advisory board of any kind). They just claim that they have a 'top-notch writing staff'. (All the articles I saw were written by 'admin'.)
The email from Hospital.com also claims they are in compliance with MedlinePlus/National Library of Medicine Quality Guidelines, though a quick check of the MedlinePlus guidelines refutes this claim. The guidelines state, for example: ".. The source of the content is established, respected and dependable. The organization publishes a list of advisory board members or consultants on the site."
Since they are putting out scientific, legal, and medical information without proper credentials, I wouldn't have put their links on our website in any case - but I fear they may fool others who are more credulous. Just look at how many doctors they've got signed up on Newdoctor.com! Scary.
[end third party email]
_________
My previous coverage of Phone to Phone Inc. and related entities:
* Phone to Phone Inc. is Spamming Again--This Time for Lawschool.org (Jan. 14, 2010)
* Another Phone to Phone Inc. Employee Speaks Out (Dec. 15, 2009)
* Questionable Employment and SEO Practices at Phone to Phone Inc.? (Dec. 10, 2009)
* Attorney.org is Latest Phone to Phone Inc. Website to Spam Me (Oct. 28, 2009)
* More Spam from Phone to Phone Inc.--This Time on Behalf of Laws.com (Oct. 23, 2009)
* Newlawyer.com Spams Me Again (Twice in One Day!) (Oct. 19, 2009)
* Newlawyer.com: Persistent Telemarketer, and Now a Spammer (Oct. 2, 2009)
I also wrote a review of Newlawyer.com at SiteJabber.
Posted by Eric at 11:28 AM | Blogosphere Issues , Legal Industry | TrackBack
January 14, 2010
Phone to Phone Inc. is Spamming Again--This Time for Lawschool.org
I have received numerous promises from Phone to Phone Inc. that they will stop spamming me, but either they have ignored those promises or they have an incredibly weak internal data tracking system. My latest spammed email from Phone to Phone Inc. (which, characteristically, I received twice, nine minutes apart):
____
from Michael Geller
to egoldman@gmail.com
date Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 11:18 AM
subject Regarding a Partnership Opportunity
To whom it may concern,
My name is Mike Geller and I am an assistant editor with LawSchool.org. I came across your website and noticed that you have law school related resources on your page, so I wanted to reach out to you to discuss the potential of having LawSchool.org added.
LawSchool.org offers a number of features like a legal career center, up to date law school information and news, profiles of law schools around the country, and information regarding admission standards and financial aid. Several universities and colleges around the country like Syracuse Law School, University of Colorado, and NYU utilize LawSchool.org as a resource for their students. If you have any questions feel free to contact me and please let me know if you are able to make this addition. Thank you very much.
Mike
_____
Obviously Mike didn't actually look at my website (at least, not very closely). If he had, it would have been impossible to miss my repeated blog criticisms of his employer.
I have formulated a new hypothesis that Phone to Phone Inc. is a domainer, i.e., they have a sizable portfolio of domain names, which they are trying to build content for using cheap student labor. Let me offer some support for this theory.
First, they have a portfolio of generic domain names. I don't know how many, in part because the ones I've checked are registered via domain proxies to mask Phone to Phone Inc. as the owner. I believe all of the following domain names are associated with Phone to Phone Inc.:
Attorney.org
Chessboss.com (check out the associated Twitter account--wow!)
Disease.com
Docket.com
Hospital.com
Laws.com
LawSchool.org
Medicalschool.org
Newdoctor.com
NewLawyer.com
Pathology.org
Physician.com
Science.org
I'm pretty sure this list is incomplete. If you know of other domain names in their portfolio, please let me know.
Second, many of their sites are built on the same basic design template. Take a look at a few of the sites and you'll see what I mean.
Third, they use Craigslist aggressively to recruit new employees. See the Craigslist listings for Mahwah, New Jersey and notice how often Phone to Phone Inc. shows up:
* Jan 14 - Looking for Skilled Writers - (Mahwah, NJ) << writing/editing
* Jan 14 - Looking For Marketers - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 14 - MARKETING POSITIONS AVAILABLE - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 14 - Writing Positions Available - (Mahwah, NJ) << writing/editing
* Jan 14 - Great Postions for Recent College Grads - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 14 - Marketing Positions Available - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 14 - Marketing JOb Opportunities - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 14 - Looking For Writers - (Mahwah, NJ) << writing/editing
* Jan 14 - Limited Number of Marketing Opportunities Available - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 13 - MARKETING POSITIONS AVAILABLE - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 13 - Limited Number of Marketing Opportunities Available - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 13 - Marketing Joba Available - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 13 - Limited Number of Marketing Opportunities Available - ((Mahwah, NJ) ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 11 - Limited Number of Marketing Opportunities Available - (Mahwah, NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 5 - Entry Level Marketing - (Mahwah NJ) << marketing/advertising/PR
* Jan 5 - Writers Needed - (Mahwah NJ) << writing/editing
* Dec 28 - Entry Level Marketing - (Mahwah NJ) << admin/office
I count no less than 9 postings on January 14, 2010 alone! [Update: I count another 7 postings on Jan. 15]. Most of the postings are blind, but they seem to follow some common formats that give me reason to believe that all of these listings are related.
Why does the company need to run so many ads? Are people not responding to the ads? (An unlikely prospect given this down market). Does the company have a large or rapidly growing workforce? Does it have unusually high turnover?
You will notice that the listings clearly target student workers, mentioning that they are hiring graduating college seniors/recent graduates and promising volleyball courts and free Red Bull. I wonder if college students, desperate for a job in a down market, are particularly vulnerable to some of the tactics alleged by a previous tipster?
I am curious about their cost model of developing content. A previous tipster indicated that employees are expected to write about one 500 word article every 30 minutes. At a salary of $12/hr, fully loaded to approx. $15/hr including benefits, this would work out to about $7.50 per 500 word article. (I'm discounting the allegations that they don't pay some folks at all for the work they do, which if true would result in extremely cheap content). I'm pretty sure $7.50 for 500 words is relatively cheap for content acquisition, but you get what you pay for. My personal assessment of the content I've seen is that it's crap--it's low-quality search engine bait that indexes well but is useless to humans who actually read it. Google needs to do a better job coping with these attacks on the integrity of their algorithms. I suspect, in the end, Google will have to make manual downgrades of crummy sites that they discover are engaged in pumping out lots of low content quality. In any case, it appears that Phone to Phone Inc. is aggregating cheap but junky content that will not improve readers' impressions of their brand. No surprises there.
My previous coverage of Phone to Phone Inc. and related entities:
* Another Phone to Phone Inc. Employee Speaks Out (Dec. 15, 2009)
* Questionable Employment and SEO Practices at Phone to Phone Inc.? (Dec. 10, 2009)
* Attorney.org is Latest Phone to Phone Inc. Website to Spam Me (Oct. 28, 2009)
* More Spam from Phone to Phone Inc.--This Time on Behalf of Laws.com (Oct. 23, 2009)
* Newlawyer.com Spams Me Again (Twice in One Day!) (Oct. 19, 2009)
* Newlawyer.com: Persistent Telemarketer, and Now a Spammer (Oct. 2, 2009)
I also wrote a review of Newlawyer.com at SiteJabber.
Posted by Eric at 02:30 PM | Blogosphere Issues , Legal Industry | TrackBack
January 06, 2010
Courtroom Coverage in the Internet Era--a Conference Recap
By Eric Goldman
In November 2009, I spoke at an interesting and unusual event sponsored by the Ninth Circuit Public Information and Community Outreach Committee, a group I'd never heard of before. The group regularly sponsors a conference called the "Northern California Federal Courts Media Conference," which brings together journalists, judges and court administrators to talk about media coverage of the federal courts. This year's event was entitled "New Media in the Courtroom: How Blogs, Twitter and Social Media Are Changing Legal Reporting." You can watch some of the conference proceedings here.
Broadcasting Courtroom Proceedings
The OJ Simpson trial in the early 1990s reshaped media coverage in the courtroom. The trial was documented exhaustively by the cameras and left many with the perception that the judge and attorneys mugged for the in-courtroom cameras (although Kelli Sager's position is that the mugging did not decrease when the cameras were off). Shortly after the OJ trial, the federal courts (and many state courts) adopted ruled prohibiting recording and broadcasting of events within the courtroom. The federal rules even take the discretion out of district court judges' hands to waive the rule if they choose.
As an example of the anti-broadcasting rules, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 53 says:
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.
This rule is fairly easily applied to Big Media representatives who show up with bulky TV or still cameras and are repeat players known to court administrators. But what does it mean to "broadcast" courtroom proceedings in an era where cheap and ubiquitous technological devices have turned every courtroom audience member into a potential broadcaster? In some courtrooms, judges are excluding cellphones and potentially even laptops (Judge Illston says she allows computers unless the typing noise is too distracting). Even more extreme, in November, a district court judge barred a journalist from live-Twittering the proceedings via his Blackberry because the judge took the position (wrongly, IMO) that Twittering is a prohibited "broadcasting" of the event. See US v. Shelnutt, 2009 WL 3681827 (M.D .Ga. Nov. 2, 2009). The judge said:
the contemporaneous transmission of electronic messages from the courtroom describing the trial proceedings, and the dissemination of those messages in a manner such that they are widely and instantaneously accessible to the general public, falls within the definition of "broadcasting" as used in Rule 53. Therefore, this type of broadcasting is prohibited under Rule 53.
The illogic of this rule is overwhelming. Is one Twitter post enough? Does it matter if the poster has no followers? What if the posts are impressions and not factual descriptions? More importantly, does it change the analysis if the reporter writes his posts contemporaneously and then uploads them at the breaks or the end of the day? It seems like it would in the Shelnutt case, but this is silly--it's the exact same content, just posted on a delay.
I don't want to speak for others, but my impression is that none of the conference attendees supported the current categorical ban against courtroom broadcasting. Obviously the journalists and First Amendment types don't like it; but neither did the judges, who would rather have discretion over administrating their courtrooms. Further, a comprehensive recording of trial proceedings could help appellate review as well as future researchers trying to understand a case's context.
There was some hope expressed at the conference that the no-broadcasting rule would be relaxed in the next year or two. In my opinion, the rule has long outlived any usefulness it had. However, Judge Illston sounded a cautionary note when she said that the court reporter lobby is "a force to be reckoned with." Perhaps economic protectionism will make the deregulation process harder than it should be.
We discussed the allocation of scarce resources among potential media sources, such as courtroom seats when audience demand exceeds room capacity. Where encountering scarcities, judges inevitably draw lines between "credible" journalists and other media representatives, even though they don't want to make those distinctions--and no one else wants them to make those distinctions either. For now, my impression is that judges treat Big Media better than bloggers when doling out scarce resources, although as Big Media fades away and citizen journalists continue to prove their credibility and become repeat players, I could see this changing. Obviously the better solution is to eliminate scarcity when possible so every media representative can get equal treatment. Live broadcasting of courtroom proceedings would be a huge step forward in alleviating any seat scarcity issues.
Juror Exposure to Case Information
We also discussed juror exposure to case information. The rule is simple--jurors are supposed to consider only evidence presented in court. In practice, this rule is out-of-sync with modern information flows and people's temptation to self-educate by doing their own research. Certainly that's how I usually proceed when I'm trying to learn something new. I do Google searches and often look through multiple search results, and when I can't do that, I feel bereft. So walling off judicial proceedings both from modern life and people's normal learning processes is fundamentally anachronistic. Evan Brown has more to say on this topic (and supports the anachronism).
Nevertheless, judges are trying to restrict the infoglut by giving jurors increasingly long lists of things they cannot do while in a trial. Not only does this include restrictions on seeking out case information, but it also includes enjoying technological devices that may passively expose the juror to case information. Taken to an extreme, this could include reading one's email, because someone might inadvertently email case information to the juror. As Judge Illston described it, the restriction lists are like trying to sequester jurors without sequestering them--in other words, cut off their information flows without physically restraining them, Jennifer Granick suggested that judges may need to designate more alternate jurors so that the inevitable juror slip-ups don't require a complete process restart.
The de facto info-sequestration raises some interesting questions about whether depriving jurors of their normal tools actually degrades jurors' decision-making. It reminds me a little of the mental confusion that can occur when law professors force law students to take law school exams using hand-written bluebooks when all of the students spent the entire semester learning the material and expressing themselves via computer. Carol Williams from the LA Times also pointed out that info-sequestration poses problems for potential jurors who need to use the Internet for professional and personal reasons. Ultimately, these folks may be removed from the jury pool, directly or because they try to wiggle out of the obligation, and either way this change in the jury pool could have other unwanted consequences.
This discussion suggested a sure-to-work way to get kicked off a jury or avoid being empaneled in the first place--simply search for case information using your mobile device while you're waiting, and off you go. Of course, if they judge instructs you not to do that, it would be inappropriate and potentially punishable to disregard the judge's instructions.
A related issue: In many cases, testifying witnesses are not supposed to monitor trial proceedings. However, with the advent of real-time reporting on cases, it's possible to do so remotely--and frequently judges do not have a chance to admonish witnesses until they appear in the courtroom, which might be too late. Judges can tell lawyers to instruct their witnesses not to monitor the trial proceedings, but lawyers might drop the ball or witnesses might not heed the warning (especially if the witness is adverse or would give more credit to a warning directly from the judge). Lawyers cross-examining a witness might increasingly ask the witness what research he/she has done to learn more about the trial proceedings.
Conclusion
The interplay between court administration and media/blogger coverage is an interesting, rich and multi-faceted topic. The conference covered a lot of ground but left many questions open. For more reading about the conference, see Joyce Cutler's BNA recap and John Steele's live-blogging of the first session.
Some recent topically related articles include Rachel Lee, "Ex Parte Blogging: The Legal Ethics of Supreme Court Advocacy in the Internet Era" and the recently issued and very useful CMLP Guilde to Live-Blogging and Tweeting from Court.
Media Alerts Initiative
In a separate but related announcement, Judge McKeown previewed the new Media Alerts on Federal Courts of Appeals, where academics will select and summarize key federal appellate court rulings. The site describes its mission as:
This website is designed to provide reporters, lawyers, educators, and the public with prompt, accurate, unbiased information about newsworthy and legally significant cases pending in and decided by the Federal Courts of Appeals. Our goal is to assist the media’s efforts to provide timely and extensive reporting about federal court decisions.
I think this is a great objective, although I wonder how useful media folks will find the website, especially given that it is effectively competing with existing blog coverage. I also wonder how invested the academics and their students will be in this endeavor. For example, just looking at the Ninth Circuit roster, the featured "upcoming cases" have an argument date of Dec. 14. Hmm....
Posted by Eric at 10:53 AM | Blogosphere Issues , Legal Industry | TrackBack
January 04, 2010
Where to Find Me Spring 2010
I'm on sabbatical in Spring 2010. Being on sabbatical has two main effects on my work schedule: (1) I am not teaching this semester, and (2) I have temporarily handed off my administrative duties to my colleague Tyler Ochoa (by far the biggest benefit of the sabbatical!). Otherwise, for the most part, my work schedule and location will be the same.
As part of preparing for my sabbatical, I have intentionally reduced my travel and speaking engagements in Spring. My current schedule of trips and public speaking gigs (I'm sure there will be others):
January 8-9: AALS, New Orleans. At minimum, I'll be at the IP professors gathering on Friday night, the IP Section meeting on Saturday morning, and the Law & Computers section meeting (which I'll be chairing--please come!) on Saturday afternoon. This is one of only two currently scheduled trips outside of the Bay Area for the semester, so I hope to catch you there.
January 28: FTC Privacy Roundtable, Berkeley
March 9, 6 pm: Jewish High Tech Community, Mountain View. I'll present my reputation project to a non-lawyer audience. This event is open to the public for a nominal fee, so I hope you'll consider coming.
April 8: I will be helping with Paul Ohm's joint HTLI-CSTS-Markkula presentation at SCU on de-identification.
April 9-10: Copyright @300, Berkeley, cosponsored by the BCLT and HTLI. I don't have a speaking/moderating role, but I will be around for at least part of the event. This should be a terrific conference, and I hope you can make it.
April 16-17: Chicago for a private gathering of trademark law professors.
May 11, noon: San Jose State University School of Library and Information Science as part of their colloquia series. I'll be presenting on my reputation project again. I believe this event is open to the public, and the talk also will be podcast (and perhaps webcast?).
As always, let me know if you would like more details about an event or if you would like to meet up.
Posted by Eric at 06:41 PM | Life as a Law Professor | TrackBack
January 03, 2010
When is the Best Time to Visit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Contrary to popular belief, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge experiences all four seasons--winter, spring, summer and fall. It's just that three of the seasons are really short. Winter is effectively nine months long and the other three seasons are each about 1 month. So what's the best time to visit? Each season offers its own opportunities and challenges.
Winter--September through May
Advantages: certain activities are possible only during this time, such as the emergence of polar bear cubs
Disadvantages: 24 hours of darkness between November and February, dangerously cold, risk of long blizzards, weather may prevent transportation, many animals have migrated for the season, extremely limited commercial tours available
Spring--first three weeks of June
Advantages: 24 hours of sunlight, weather has warmed up enough to be tolerable, bugs generally are limited
Disadvantages: weather can still be cold and fickle, rivers may still be iced over in places, hills and tundra may be mostly brown (not yet green)
Summer--last week of June to first week of August
Advantages: 24 hours of sunlight, weather is warmest that it gets, river water levels reach their peak (around end of July), July has best display of wildflowers
Disadvantages: bugs can be oppressive
Fall--last three weeks of August
Advantages: tundra changes colors, possibility of seeing the aurora borealis, temperatures are still tolerable (although snow becomes increasingly likely in second half of August)
Disadvantages can be rainy, may still be buggy
Prior posts on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
* Review of Ah, Rose Marie Bed & Breakfast, Fairbanks, Alaska
* Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Reading List
* Arctic National Wildlife Refuge/Hulahula River Photos and Video
* Arctic National Wildlife Refuge/Hulahula River Trip Quick FAQs