Is it just me or is it completely ironic that a pair of European entrepreneurs kept out of the United States due to tantrum lawsuits from the music industry are stamping their own legal feet like two ill-tempered toddlers of late?

That would be Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis, who today filed yet another lawsuit in their seemingly never-ending quest to win in court what they couldn’t in business dealmaking.

Today, via a new lawsuit, they are following through on their recent attempt to smear former Joost CEO Michelangelo Volpi.

Zennström and Friis co-founded Joost, you see, and last week were part of dumping him as a director and as its chairman, a job Volpi had retained when he left his top job at Joost to join Index Ventures in July.

Not satisfied with that, Joost also said then in an astonishing statement: “The company and its board of directors is conducting an investigation into Mr. Volpi’s actions during his tenure as CEO and as chairman.”

Of course, it is all part of the pair being on the very-sore-losing side of the $2 billion deal to buy Skype from eBay (EBAY).

Zennström and Friis got very rich selling the Internet telephony service to eBay in 2005.

This year, they turned around and tried to buy it back, hooking up with a group of private-equity investors.

Both Google (GOOG) and Microsoft (MSFT) also considered bids, and dropped out for various reasons.

And so did Volpi, in one of his first deals at Index–and the London-based venture firm was one of the smaller players on the winning side of the deal to buy Skype, putting up $75 million.

To complicate things further, Zennström and Friis also own a company called Joltid, which has licensed key technology for Skype to eBay.

Joltid and eBay have already been fighting in a British court over that agreement, bickering back and forth about whether eBay violated the terms of that deal or not.

Earlier this week, via Joltid, Zennström and Friis also filed suit again against Skype and its owner, eBay, for copyright violations in the U.S.

For good measure, they also added the winning buyout group, including Silver Lake Partners, Index, Andreessen Horowitz and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Did I forget to mention that lawsuit-happy Zennström and Friis also sued the investment banker who represented them in the original Skype sale?

So, it comes as no shock that both Joltid and Joost–aka Zennström and Friis–announced yesterday that they are suing Volpi personally, as well as Index again.

They allege tech skullduggery on Volpi’s part, in which he used confidential information he learned at Joost to thwart Joltid.

Evidence and proof–on first blush–seem to have little to do with this and ire at losing a deal and trying to gain leverage for a settlement seem to be the true game.

And what their next legal move might be is anybody’s guess.

But you get the idea here, don’t you?

Of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that most people think the Singleton speech was aimed at the search giant and its burgeoning power over the distribution of media, although Google was not named by him.

Still, it’s always nice to make nice. Sort of.

So, it was hard to resist translating this Google (GOOG) blog by one of its lawyers.

Google wrote: Some questions related to Google News and the Associated Press
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Posted by Alexander Macgillivray, Associate General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property

Translation: Questions? Someone has questions about our practices? OK, we will answer them only to assuage the panic among the little brains about our size and power over IP.

But remember: They don’t call us Googzilla for nothing!

Google wrote: Yesterday I entered the following search in Google News: [Phish in mountain view]. The search results led me to click on this headline, which took me to the full story by the San Jose Mercury News about Phish’s upcoming concert at Shoreline Amphitheatre.

Translation: Hey, we might seem like geeks over here at the Googleplex, chomping on organic flax crackers and making up scary algorithms, but we know of this hip Phish phenom. We looked it up under “hip” on Google!

[Complete digression: BoomTown was in a car pool with the very sweet Trey Anastasio for many years in middle school, and he was not such a hipster then!]

Google wrote: Users like me are sent from different Google sites to newspaper websites at a rate of more than a billion clicks per month. These clicks go to news publishers large and small, domestic and international–day and night.

Translation: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Google wrote: And once a reader is on the newspaper’s site, we work hard to help them earn revenue. Our AdSense program pays out millions of dollars to newspapers that place ads on their sites, and our goal is that our interest-based advertising technology will help newspapers make more from each click we send them by serving better, more relevant ads to their readers to generate higher returns.

Translation: Money makes the world go around,
the world go around, the world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
it makes the world go round.

A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,
a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound,
Is all that makes the world go around,
that clinking clanking sound,
Can make the world go round.

Google wrote: The Associated Press (AP) recently issued a press release announcing plans to develop an initiative to “protect” the newspaper industry’s content online. Since then, some readers, users and journalists have asked us if the AP’s plan is about Google since we host complete AP articles. The answer is that it doesn’t appear to pertain to Google since we host those articles in partnership with the AP. We announced that partnership in 2007 as part of an experiment in hosting articles on our site. In hosting agreements such as this, we pay news agencies and display the entire text of articles, such as this one from the AP about President Obama’s visit to Turkey.

Translation: Ain’t nobody here but us chickens!

Hey, we pay up some! Not a lot! But some. I mean, YouTube doesn’t pay up and it has tons of content on the site that is not theirs.

Wait, we own YouTube. Forget that example.

Back to chickens. Nobody here!

Google wrote: We drive traffic and provide advertising in support of all business models–whether news sources choose to host their articles with us or on their own sites, and whether their business model is ad-supported or based on subscriptions. In all cases, for news articles we’ve crawled and indexed but do not host, we show users just enough to make them want to read more–the headline, a “snippet” of a line or two of text and a link back to to the news publisher’s website.

Translation: Hey, we only give consumers a little smackeral, in the lingo of the great Winnie the Pooh. Well, yes, that bear does always end up gobbling all the honey. Forget that example.

Back to chickens then, but chickens with an advertising-supported business model!

Google wrote: In the U.S., the doctrine of fair use enshrined in the US Copyright Act allows us to show snippets and links. The fair use doctrine protects transformative uses of content, such as indexing to make it easier to find [pdf]. Even though the Copyright Act does not grant a copyright owner a veto over such uses, it is our policy to allow any rightsholder, in this case newspaper or wire service, to remove their content from our index–all they have to do is ask us or implement simple technical standards such as robots.txt or metatags.

Translation: Oh yes, the fine print. Legal stuff–fair use, transformative, indexing. In other words, we’re covered, and 3,476 Washington lobbyists have our back.

But hey, here is some technical stuff and we’ll also take it out–all you have to do is ask, although it will effectively make you undiscoverable for all of time!

And, if you do then want us to take it out, comb through our gazillions of search results to find your stuff, over and over and over again, like gerbils on a treadmill. We totally hope that does not exhaust you in every way possible.

Google wrote: As for Phish in Mountain View this summer, asking will get you nowhere because the tickets are already sold out.

Translation: Also, for anyone keeping score, Phish owes us too, since no one would have found tickets without us. Google HQ is right smack up against Shoreline Amphitheatre, so we are watching.

So let’s review: Ozymandias, King of Kings. Chickens. Smackeral. Hip.

Nothing to see here, so please enjoy this lovely Phish video of “Bouncing Around the Room” from YouTube (relax, it’s from their official channel):

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Under cover of darkness last night, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on the social-networking site’s blog that it would “return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

Oh, this is just too good to resist. Therefore, BoomTown shall not tarry in our ongoing job of busting the chops of the young Facebook leader, whose minions have actually–and I am not joking here–given him the nickname: The Wizard.

Well, the Wizard obviously had to pull back the curtain last night and show some serious mea culpa to the people, before they got out the pitchforks.

That’s due to the controversy Facebook has been embroiled in this week about changes it recently made to its Terms of Service that gave the company unusually sweeping rights over customers’ content and privacy.

While Zuckerberg had said in his first post about the issue that Facebook was not in the content-stealing business, the strong language in the ToS sent the usual suspects into a major meltdown over the possibility that the young geek had gone into full-scale evil mogul mode.

As if!

In fact, Zuckerberg has been ensconced in his Silicon Valley lair for years now, counting down until he knows precisely everything about everyone’s drunken college days!

Until D-Day then, here is my translation of his latest backtracking post:

What the Wizard wrote: Update on Terms

Today at 10:17 pm

Translation: OK, I have reached my limit of being yelled at by Sheryl and Elliot, have had my usual breakfast of Red Bull and Frosted Flakes–they’re grrreat!–and am ready to eat some major digital crow this morning.

I mean, night, which is my morning, because I actually slept through all this noise today about this whole Terms of Service “controversy.”

What the Wizard wrote: A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.

Translation: Did you know crow is delicious if you eat it with a little Bosco on top?

More to the point, I would just like to assure you that we have taken our lawyers–who idiotically rewrote our ToS to give us ownership rights to the Bible, “American Idol” and everything Bill O’Reilly utters–and sent them over to our friends at MySpace, because their owner, News Corp. (NWS), already owns two of those three [and also this site!].

What the Wizard wrote: Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input.

Translation: As in: More yelling by Sheryl and Elliott and more Fedexing of lawyers to MySpace HQ in Beverly Hills.

But after we calmed down, we all decided the best course of action was to shoot ourselves in the right foot to stop the bleeding from when we shot our left foot before.

We are, of course, completely out of feet now, so if these hijinks continue, sooner or later, someone is going to lose an eye. By someone, I mean, um, me.

What the Wizard wrote: Going forward, we’ve decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don’t plan to leave it there for long.

Translation: Facebook, of course, never had any intention of stealing content and copyright! Perish the thought! After all, that’s the job of Google (GOOG)!

By contrast, ours is to collect incredibly embarrassing photos of everyone in the United States until one of them runs for president, and then our nefarious scheme to control the world begins.

We were planning on blackmailing the world for one billllliiiion dollars then, but Microsoft kind of forked over 15 times that without any pressure.

Still, we would like to own Palo Alto, Calif., and get free parking 24/7, so there will be demands!

Until then, enjoy the sheep-throwing. Mwaahahahahahahaha! (Quick visual: I am petting my white cat right now with Ernst Stavro Blofeld-like evil glee, and am, of course, cackling.)

What the Wizard wrote: More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren’t just a document that protect our rights; it’s the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service.

Translation: Not to be completely and utterly arrogant or anything, but we just passed Pakistan, and those Brazilians better get ready to samba.

By the way, once we get to No. 1–look out, China!–we plan on decreeing that everyone in the world speak Pig Latin and that forthwith it will be flip-flop Fridays.

Also: Esyay, Iway amway anway alienway omfray anotherway anetplay.

What the Wizard wrote: Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we’ll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.

Translation: Ybay ethay ayway, “Otay Ervesay Anmay”? It’sway away ookbookcay.

In other words, I am sure you will make delicious contributions, after which Facebook will “invite” you to our world-wide HQ to share in a lovely meal.

Especially those Winklevii. I look forward to the twins coming by soon!

What the Wizard wrote: You have my commitment that we’ll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few weeks. In the meantime, we’ve changed the terms back to what existed before the February 4th change, which was what most people asked us for and was the recommendation of the outside experts we consulted.

Translation: To my credit, I did give in much quicker than with the Beacon ad snafu. And you thought I learned nothing during that debacle!

And, by outside experts, I mean Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer, who yells much, much louder than Sheryl or Elliot combined.

What the Wizard wrote: If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created–Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. I’m looking forward to reading your input.

Translation: Here’s my first pass, based on the U.S. Bill of Rights, Amendment I:

Facebook shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition Faebook for a redress of grievances.*

*Exceptway, ithway ymay ompletecay iscretionday, enwhay Iway
ecideday otherwiseway.

Late tonight, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a blog entry, saying the popular social-networking site would “return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

Facebook has been embroiled in a controversy this week about its Terms of Service–essentially a Web site’s rules that users must abide by while using its online service–after recent changes gave it more sweeping rights over customers’ content and privacy.

While BoomTown in no way thinks Facebook had any intention of asserting copyright ownership over intellectual property posted by users, the language was strong enough to make such a thing possible and went much further than other sites on the issue.

My guess: It was more likely a case of lawyers gone wild.

Facebook’s Zuckerberg said in a post yesterday that the service had made the changes in the first place in order to archive posts and other content users had shared with each other, even after such material was deleted.

“When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created–one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message,” he wrote in his first post.

To be fair, Zuckerberg also had noted: “Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with.”

But the fact that Facebook had still given itself such wide-ranging rights over content, whatever the reason, had caused a nuclear explosion online among users, privacy advocates, content owners and the media.

Thus, in full backtracking mode tonight, Zuckerberg returned Facebook’s ToS to its previous version, pending new wording. He also said a new “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” (you can join here) was on the way and asked for user input.

Viva La Revolución! I vote for no more SuperPoking!

Here is the whole blog and here is a link to it on Facecook too:

Update on Terms

If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created—Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69048030774). I’m looking forward to reading your input.

When he debuted his company’s new DVD copier at DEMOfall recently, called RealDVD, RealNetworks’ Rob Glaser did a video interview with BoomTown about it.

And now that RealNetworks (RNWK) and Hollywood are cross-suing each other over RealDVD–in the latest clash over the still-contentious copyright issue that separates the tech and entertainment industries–it’s time for a replay!

The RealDVD software allows a user to rip all the parts of a DVD, including cover art, onto a computer. It costs about $30.

Hollywood studios, which filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday, maintain that RealDVD is illegal, and one of their reps called it “StealDVD.”

Haw, haw. This is what apparently passes for clever in Hollywood these days.

But before the entertainment giants’ lawsuit, RealNetworks filed its own suit, claiming it was protecting the fair-use rights of consumers to make copies of content they had purchased.

To avoid violating digital rights management schemes, RealDVD has added its own DRM layer, preventing ripped DVDs from being copied and shared and imposing further barriers to piracy.

But there are still possibilities for illegal ripping, of course, because RealDVD users must promise not to copy videos they don’t own.

No surprise–an honor-system product that makes it even easier to copy DVDs was not exactly welcome by Hollywood, which has been trying to protect its movie revenues from suffering the same fate as the music industry via rampant CD-ripping.

Thus, the typical mainstream media reaction to the inevitability of consumers wanting to digitize content: More lawsuits!

In any case, here’s the video of Glaser talking about RealDVD:

But--as many readers have requested--they will all be available in their entirety over the next two weeks in this column.]

Here’s Part 3 of 6 of our interview with Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp. (NWS) (owner of this site and the conference), conducted by me and Walt Mossberg, in which he talks about television, Hulu, copyright, YouTube, movies, Hollywood, social networking, advertising, Google and more Yahoo and Microsoft.

Here are the rest of the videos of the interview:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

And, the first to report on the controversial story of it then being taken down by YouTube (GOOG), in a fight the group had with a local photographer, Lane Hartwell, who objected to the use of a photo she took that was in the video without her permission or payment to her for its use.

The Hartwell photo was removed, and the copyright controversy eventually died down. And the video still remains very funny and even more realistic than ever, given the series of crazy Web 2.0 funding valuations of late.

And now “Bubble”–which opens with a BoomTown interview with investor Peter Thiel, who denies such a thing as a bubble in tech–has won a Webby Award for Best Viral Video.

Well, congrats to the creators of the video, which mocks the current Silicon Valley culture with affection, set to the tune of Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire”:

Using the software, you can download online videos from Web sites with one click, organize them and burn them to DVD and CD. Copyright issues are interesting here, of course, but Glaser said protected material would not be able to be sucked up by the technology. We’ll see.

By way of background, D: All Things Digital, the annual tech and media conference Walt Mossberg and I host, has been sold out with a long wait list every year we have put it on.

That has meant only a few hundred people can see the interviews and also demos we do live onstage with some of the tech and media industry’s most interesting and important players and products.

The lineups have included Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Apple’s Steve Jobs, as well as Eric Schmidt of Google, IAC’s Barry Diller, Meg Whitman of eBay, Cisco’s John Chambers and many others.

And we’ve demoed stuff like the Treo when it first came out, as well as digital toilets, Wi-Fi phones and much more.

We usually post the photos and videos of the interviews and demos six or more months after they take place on a separate conference site. This year, our Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski live-blogged, and we also posted video highlights from all of the sessions immediately on our newly launched site here.

Now, we are posting videos of every session of the 2007 conference here, in full, and we have made all our photo galleries, hosted by SmugMug and mostly shot by our fabulous Asa Mathat, public too. You can also access our videos via the site’s master player here.

Every day, I am going to highlight a different interview or demo from the conference.

Here’s the RealPlayer 11:

While it is always nice to get a $1.6 billion payout for a company started only recently, as the explosive online video service did from Google, the future direction of the company is still uncertain.

Besides the $1 billion lawsuit being waged by media giant Viacom over alleged copyright infringement by YouTube, it must come up with a way to help prevent such illegal copying and also a lucrative way to serve ads.

Naturally, Walt prods the pair of founders on these and other issues.

By way of background, D: All Things Digital, the annual tech and media conference Walt Mossberg and I host, has been sold out with a long wait list every year we have put it on.

That has meant only a few hundred people can see the interviews and also demos we do live onstage with some of the tech and media industry’s most interesting and important players and products.

The lineups have included Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Apple’s Steve Jobs, as well as Eric Schmidt of Google, IAC’s Barry Diller, Meg Whitman of eBay, Cisco’s John Chambers and many others.

And we’ve demoed stuff like the Treo when it first came out, as well as digital toilets, Wi-Fi phones and much more.

We usually post the photos and videos of the interviews and demos six or more months after they take place on a separate conference site. This year, our Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski liveblogged D5 and also posted video highlights from all of the sessions immediately on our newly launched site here.

Now, we are posting videos of every session of the 2007 conference here, in full, and we have made all our photo galleries, hosted by SmugMug and mostly shot by our fabulous Asa Mathat, public too. You can also access our videos via the site’s master player here.

Every day, I am going to highlight a different interview or demo from the conference.

Here are Hurley and Chen:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google (owner of YouTube).

I will admit it–I thought Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman would go over like a lead balloon with the D5 audience, given the media giant had just sued Google–the digital arena’s biggest power of late–for $1 billion for alleged copyright violations at its YouTube subsidiary.

While not everyone in the tech space is cheering for the search giant, no one likes the litigious tactics of the old-media entertainment industry either, which have in the past–witness the music industry versus Napster–centered on deploying legions of lawyers rather than finding ways to cope with digital realities.

But I thought Dauman, who was sandwiched between YouTube co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen and Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt, made cogent arguments for his side (he is, after all, a lawyer by training, too), making the case for the need to stand up to the stealing of content online. At the same time, he also seemed ready to deal with the changes wrought by new technologies on Viacom’s business.

By way of background, D: All Things Digital, the annual tech and media conference Walt Mossberg and I host, has been sold out with a long wait list every year we have put it on.

That has meant only a few hundred people can see the interviews we do live onstage with some of the tech and media industry’s most interesting and important players.

The lineups have included Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Apple’s Steve Jobs, as well as Eric Schmidt of Google, IAC’s Barry Diller, Meg Whitman of eBay, Cisco’s John Chambers and many others.

We usually post the photos and videos of the interviews six or more months after they take place on a separate conference site. This year, our Digital Daily’s John Paczkowski liveblogged D5 and also posted video highlights from all of the sessions immediately on our newly launched site here.

Now, we are posting videos of every session of the 2007 conference here, in full, and we have made all our photo galleries, hosted by SmugMug and mostly shot by our fabulous Asa Mathat, public too. You can also access our videos via the site’s master player here.

Every day, I am going to highlight a different interview from the conference.

Today, we’re showcasing Dauman. As I said, a fine performance, helped too by a very funny intro video by Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central, made especially for D5.

Both are below:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google (owner of YouTube).

That’s what Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman has asked for in the media giant’s legal war over copyright infringement with search behemoth Google.

So leave it to those clever minxes at Google to turn the whole thing into a new version of “Austin Powers,” casting Dauman as Dr. Evil and his son of the same name, except for a Jr., as Scott, the estranged progeny of Dr. Evil and Frau Farbissina.

Because according to a post yesterday in The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, while Philippe the Elder is trying to stop Google’s YouTube from ripping off “SpongeBob SquarePants” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” Philippe the Younger will be working there.

It’s not clear from the piece (by Martin Peers and Kevin Delaney) what exactly his job will be, but all the dripping irony is more than enough for us.

Noted the post:

That Philippe Jr. would now be working for Google has proved a source of amusement for some in the entertainment industry. The elder Philippe (Yale, Columbia Law), though, is presumably proud of his boy. Philippe Jr. also graduated from Yale, but in May one-upped pops by snagging a Columbia MBA alongside his Columbia JD, says a person familiar with his situation, who notes he was inundated with job offers. Despite the public tiff between Viacom and Google, his dad was encouraging of the Google move, the person said. Philippe Jr. is reportedly slated to start work at Google after Labor Day.”

Also, here is a video of highlights from an interview I did with the Viacom CEO at D5 this May, in which he slaps Google around, ensuring that his son will get the smallest of the fresh-baked gourmet scones handed out at snack time.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.