Digital Media

Yesterday, I compiled my list of the five most welcome products for digital audio that came out in 2009. Today, I'm following it up with my list of the year's five biggest digital audio duds.

An image from the infamous online commercial for Songsmith, Microsoft's reverse-karaoke software.

(Credit: Microsoft)

Zookz. The breathless pitch got me interested: a mysterious online service was getting ready to compete against subscription-based download service eMusic. But where eMusic limits users to a set number of downloads, this mystery service would offer unlimited music and movie downloads. How could this be? Wouldn't users just download all the material they wanted then cancel their subscriptions? How could content owners let this happen?

The trick: Zookz was based in Antigua, and according to the company, this meant it wasn't subject to those silly little things known as U.S. copyright laws and royalty rates. Unfortunately, the country of Antigua didn't agree, and days after the public beta launched, Zookz disappeared into the digital ether with a promise to refund subscribers' money.

Jango Artist Airplay. I liked Jango's online radio service back when it launched in 2007. This year, in what looked like a desperate bid for new revenue, the company launched a service called Artist Airplay, in which bands could pay for placement on appropriate Jango stations. While Jango's CEO tried to tell me this was a reasonable new marketing opportunity, I saw it as a new form of the old pay-for-play deal that beginning bands often fall for.

With regular marketing, everybody pays more or less the same amount for the same class of services and the music sinks or swims on its own merits. With pay-for-play, artists buy exposure. There's only one problem: the resulting conflict of interest drives discerning listeners--including people who might actually pay you for your music--away. Jango Artist Direct may not be as stark as those pay-to-play "showcases" and "band battles" where all the audience members are other bands and their friends, but I believe it's better for beginning artists never to start down this slippery slope. Then again, I thought users would never be ignorant enough to click on search advertisements in massive numbers, which is one reason why Sergey Brin and Larry Page are multibillionaires and I'm not.

Vevo. As long as we're talking about Google, let's talk about YouTube, which the search company owns. It's a great source for music videos, and its APIs have formed the basis for music-finding apps like Muziic and TubeRadio. Users love it. Unfortunately, the companies and artists who own the copyrights to many of those music videos don't love it--the videos are expensive to produce, and the ad revenues from YouTube and other online video sites are scanty to nonexistent. Google is also lukewarm about music videos on YouTube, finding that the cost of policing copyright and complying with take-down notices is more than the money they can earn from selling ads.

In December, two record companies--Sony and Universal--joined together with Google in a new joint venture, Vevo, to address the problem. This was supposed to be a back-end business-to-business kind of deal, where YouTube users wouldn't know (or care) that certain videos were actually being provided exclusively by Vevo, which would sell short video advertisements to run before them. Unfortunately, the glittery launch party drew undue attention to Vevo's own site, causing its servers to buckle under the load. The entire episode left music fans scratching their heads.

Songsmith. The idea wasn't all that bad. Karaoke is fun. Making music on computers is fun. So why not, reasoned some Microsoft researchers, create a program that fills in audio accompaniment as users sing. Unfortunately, the $29.95 price and unbelievably mockable promotional video turned Songsmith into an Internet laughingstock. Later videos featuring Songsmith's accompaniment to the vocal tracks of songs like Queen's "We Will Rock You" and Van Halen's "Running With the Devil" highlighted the silliness.

CMX. In August, reports broke that the four major record labels were considering a new type of "digital album" format that would include album art, lyrics, and extra content. There was just one problem: Apple was already building its own competing format, code-named Cocktail and eventually released as iTunes LP. I think the entire concept of a digital album is weird anyway: I'm not convinced that lack of album art is a big reason why users are buying singles instead of albums. (The real reason is the Chumbawamba factor, or the fact that a lot of albums contain only one or two good songs.) And iTunes LP doesn't exactly seem to be taking off, although some of the extras--outtakes and videos--are actually quite valuable. But creating a competing format that wouldn't be supported by Apple? That's just plain dumb. To be fair, we haven't heard anything about CMX since iTunes LP launched. Here's hoping this product is killed before it's ever born.

Concert footage and other music videos from Brit band Muse were available at Hulu on Tuesday.

(Credit: Screenshot by Greg Sandoval/CNET)

Hulu's foray into music videos took another small step on Tuesday, when it struck a deal to offer some video content from Warner Music Group, one of the four largest recording companies.

The partnership calls for Hulu to offer concert footage and music videos from a handful of Warner acts, including Jason Mraz, the rock band Paramore, and alternative group Muse. CNET reported seeing Muse's content at Hulu earlier Tuesday.

To be sure, even with the addition of Warner's acts, Hulu's music video library is modest, at best. In addition to Muse, Hulu cut a deal last month with EMI to access select concert footage and music videos of some of the label's artists. That agreement was believed to be Hulu's first label deal.

YouTube is supposed to be the digital era's version of MTV. The Google video site has penned agreements with Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner, and EMI, but that doesn't appear to be stopping Hulu from striking deals with some of the labels.

Warner is a likely candidate to test the waters with a new music video outlet. The company has always said it seeks wide distribution of content and doesn't want any one distributor to have exclusive access. Now throw in a nine-month feud between Warner and Google over the terms of their music-licensing agreement, and what you have is an open door, however small, into which Hulu could squiggle.

Clips from a handful of bands aren't enough to make Hulu a power in music videos, which, incidentally, are the most-watched fare at YouTube. But at the very least, the labels do appear to be looking for more control of their content.

Earlier this month, Universal and Sony launched Vevo, a standalone music video site technologically backed by Google.

Warner is also exploring its own online video-advertising strategy. Certainly, for the labels, competition between YouTube and Hulu is good.

Updated at 1:32 p.m. PT to reference the official announcement of a Warner Music-Hulu partnership.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

According to sources close to the situation, along with its pending bid for Yelp, Google has been in on-again, off-again acquisition talks with Trulia, the real-estate search engine.

It is unclear what price Google would pay, but sources estimate that Trulia's valuation ranges between $150 million and $200 million, although there could be a big premium on that.

Rumors about Google's interest in the real-estate search market--and specifically in Trulia--have been rebounding around Silicon Valley for the last year.

But Google has pulled the trigger on a number of acquisitions of innovative start-ups recently and, sources said, will continue to do so.

Trulia--which is based in San Francisco and allows people to search for a range of data about homes for sale in particular ZIP codes or cities nationwide--is one of the more obvious candidates for the search giant's local and mobile efforts.

Its business and that of its competitors--which is largely based on advertising and lead-generation--has been growing quickly, despite the economic downturn in housing.

More interestingly, Trulia is deeply integrated into Google Maps, an arena the company recently targeted for growth with a series of announcements about new search features.

Trulia has raised about $33 million since 2005, with investors that include high-profile Silicon Valley venture firms Accel Partners and Sequoia Capital.

Interestingly, Accel and Sequoia recently made bank when Google bought AdMob for $750 million.

Trulia's clearest competitor is the larger Zillow, located in the Seattle area. But, sources said, Google is more interested in Trulia, given its location in the Bay Area and lower valuation.

Zillow has raised about $87 million from Benchmark Capital, Technology Crossover Ventures, PAR Capital Management, and Legg Mason.

Redfin, another Seattle-based rival, has raised about $31 million from its own well-known collection of VCs.

This week, Google's interest in Yelp, the local review site, also became public, in a deal that could cost upward of $600 million.

It is all part of a buying spree that Google has engaged in of late, with six acquisitions costing $1 billion so far.

Story Copyright (c) 2009 AllThingsD. All rights reserved.

Google said Friday that a Paris court has ruled against it in a lengthy copyright infringement case filed by a French publisher.

The court has ordered the search giant to pay 300,000 euros ($430,000) in damages and interest to French company La Martiniere, which runs the Editions du Seuil publishing firm. The lawsuit charged that Google was infringing on the copyrights of the publisher's books by scanning excerpts to include in its Google Book search results. La Martiniere's argument was that Google should compensate authors and publishers if the company is going to scan and publish their work on its site.

As part of the ruling, Google must also pay 10,000 euros each day until it removes the extracts. Unhappy with the verdict, Google said it plans to appeal, according to Bloomberg.

"French readers now face the threat of losing access to a significant body of knowledge and falling behind the rest of Internet users," said Philippe Colombet, director of development for Google Books in France, in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg. "We believe that displaying a limited number of short extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in France and the U.S.--and improves access to books."

The suit was originally filed in May 2006 by La Martiniere and later joined by the French Publishers Association and French authors group SGDL, which had initially asked the court to fine Google as much as 15 million euros, according to Reuters.

This suit is just one of several filed by publishers and authors upset with Google posting excerpts of their books online without fairly compensating them. In 2008, Google lost a lawsuit filed by the Authors Guild and was ordered to pay authors and publishers $125 million as compensation. An amended agreement in November clarified certain changes and updates to the settlement.

But objections to Google's book digitizing projects have been especially strident in Europe, forcing the company to make concessions to European publishers over which books it will and will not scan and publish online.

Google is reportedly in talks to buy Yelp for $500 million. Sure, buyouts are a fine exit strategy for start-ups, but does Google (insert any other Web giant here too) have to buy everything that someday could be a threat?

TechCrunch first reported the Google-Yelp talks and The New York Times is confirming them.

Now let's play this out. Google buys Yelp, a big review site for local businesses. It gets access to local listings and reviews. Google then connects it all to Google Maps and its trendy bar code scanning toy and lines up local keyword ads. Through the purchase of AdMob it gets all mobile on you and sends you coupons to your phone (an Android-powered device of course).

Read more of "Google covets Yelp; Here comes the Borg of local content" at ZDNet's Between the Lines.

Google ventured into new territory on Monday with the launch of a new URL-shortening service it's calling Goo.gl.

Unlike some existing and high-profile shorteners such as TinyURL and Bit.ly, Goo.gl is not a general-purpose link shrinker that users can access by going to a standalone site. Instead, it's been built into Google products, beginning with Google's browser toolbar and its Feedburner RSS service. Both of those services can now create shortened Goo.gl URLs that link to the source content while using fewer characters. This is especially important for sharing on places like Twitter, where there are size limits.

The feature goes hand in hand with the launch of a share button for the Google toolbar that lets users share whatever page they're on with a number of social services. As for its integration with FeedBurner, Google now provides feed owners with a way to automatically publish certain posts directly to Twitter, which will again help keep the number of characters to a minimum.

Google says the shortening service is both fast and stable. The company has also placed the same security measures that go into its search index to block pages that may contain malware or phishing schemes.

In an introductory post on its official blog, Google said that it may eventually roll out the service as a standalone site, but that for now it's being built into Google products. Such a feature would likely allow third party sites to build Goo.gl link shortening into their own products. In the meantime, other Google properties that could certainly benefit from having link shortening built-in include YouTube, Maps, Reader, and Blogger--many of which have integrated sharing features.

Update 2 p.m. PST: As we should have mentioned before, .gl is the top-level domain for Greenland. Also, Google's launch comes on the heels of Facebook having quietly launched its own URL-shortening service called FB.me. Heading there in your browser simply takes you to Facebook's home page, whereas sharing links through Facebook's mobile site will shorten them for you using a shortened FB.me URL. More on that as soon as Facebook publicly acknowledges its existence.

Visitors of Goo.gl get this page, which tells them what the service does, although will not let just anyone create shortened URLs. Instead, Google is allowing use of its service through its own products.

(Credit: CNET)

Apple was engaged in a bidding war with Google when it acquired music service Lala, The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported on Friday. That helps to explain why Apple agreed to pay $85 million, a sum that I (and others) believed was far too much for a down-on-its-luck start-up.

What has surprised some in the music sector, however, is that Apple is considering a plan to create some kind of streaming-music service and is turning to Lala's managers to help oversee the new offering. Sources in the music industry I interviewed Thursday gave varying descriptions of what position Bill Nguyen, Lala's chairman and founder, will occupy at iTunes. But virtually all of them said he and his staff will have plenty of influence over the service should Apple decide to go ahead with the plans.

One of the technology sector's most unlikely rags-to-riches stories may be unfolding before our very eyes.

Consider that Apple--the undaunted music powerhouse that altered the way people buy and listen to music and that will likely generate $2 billion in iTunes sales this year--is now seeking help from a group that cast about the digital-music sector for years, swapped out business models multiple times (without ever finding a profitable one), and basically did little to distinguish themselves.

If you're just looking at Lala's performance in the music sector, this is like the New York Yankees' taking advice from the minor leagues' Lehigh Valley IronPigs.

The big question is what can Lala possibly teach Apple about digital music?

From car sales to tech riches
Apple and Lala representatives aren't talking, but here's the first thing you should know about the deal: Nothing is set in stone yet. The Journal reported that the plans are in the earliest stages and may get altered. My music sources said that Apple has not spoken to any of the four major labels about changing their licensing agreement, which Apple would need to do before launching any new service.

To understand what Google and Apple may see in Lala, one must start with Nguyen, the company's jovial founder.

The son of Vietnamese immigrants, Nguyen (pronounced "win") is charming, wild about surfing and is well known as one of Silicon Valley's smoothest communicators. A so-so student who attended but did not graduate from Houston Baptist University, Nguyen started out selling cars but cashed in big in 1999 when he sold Onebox, an e-mail technology company, for $850 million.

Since then, he has started several other companies in addition to Lala, including Seven, a Wi-Fi software firm.

Eric Schmidt's Google charges were trying to get their hands on Lala, but Apple got the company instead.

(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET )

He is very close to Eddy Cue, the revered Apple exec who runs iTunes. What may be most important about Nguyen is that he has long had plans to take down the MP3 format. (In Apple's case, the company uses the unprotected AAC format) He has often said that MP3, the digital audio format embraced by so many music fans, is on its way out. He believes downloads have outlived their usefullness and that in the future, consumers will store their music in the cloud instead of on their hard drives.

"Will you ever (in the future) use an electronic device if it's not connected or doesn't have a browser?" Nguyen asked me a year ago. "You've got to face it, there's nothing you don't do in a browser."

Palo Alto, Calif.-based Lala started as an online marketplace where users arranged to swap CDs with each other. Lala then began streaming music to Web-enabled devices. The company would scan a users' computer hard drive and then enable the person to access the same songs--provided Lala had the rights--via the Web.

According to a report in The New York Times, Lala had concluded that it wouldn't reach profitability anytime soon and approached Apple in the hopes of making a deal.

The end of iTunes downloads?
The natural conclusion to make here is that by acquiring Lala, Apple may be laying the groundwork for a move away from the traditional song download. If this is correct, it would be stunning in that Apple has built a retail empire by selling downloads.

If Apple is preparing such a plan, that would suit the music industry just fine. Plenty of people at the top four labels have long been uncomfortable with unprotected music files. The major recording companies favor formats that protect music from being copied and shared. Label executives have also said that selling individual songs isn't a good business as the profit margins are small and it's a not a model that can't grow. Nguyen's ideas appealed to many at the music labels, particularly those at Warner Music Group, which invested $20 million into the company.

In May, Warner announced that it had to write down about $11 million of the Lala investment.

Some of the music execs I've talked to say they see a world where music buyers will leap at the chance to buy a song for life. In a world where music is stored on the servers of big companies, a consumer never has to worry about losing a song library to a broken hard drive or lost music player.

Of course, consumers would likely pay a premium for this life-time ownership and cloud-based service, but many in the industry feel that the public is ready for that kind of offer.

By all appearances, Nguyen could be the architect of this vision at iTunes.

Regardless of Lala's shortcomings, the company created something good enough to lure Google and Apple, two of technology's most successful companies. That alone isn't a bad resume.

And when you look at the $85 million purchase price, Nguyen engineered by far the best exit in the the battered digital music sector in at least a year.

There's something else to keep in mind about Nguyen; he recovers from spills quickly, usually in time to catch the next big wave. Hang 10, Bill.

Editors' note: This is a guest column. See Larry Downes' bio below.

It's been a bad week for those, like me, who feel the debate over data privacy too often casts information businesses as evil Halloween monsters, determined to terrorize and humiliate their customers just for the fun of it.

On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission held the first of three conferences on privacy and technology, at which a parade of consumer advocates and legal scholars warned of an imminent data apocalypse.

Recent events seemed, alas, to support that view. Sprint, for example, reported that over the last 13 months, it has received more than 8 million requests for GPS data about customer location and movement from law enforcement agencies. (Sprint is now determining the number customers affected, estimated to be in the thousands.)

Verizon and Yahoo filed objections to a Freedom of Information Act request that asked how much the companies charge to comply with government surveillance orders, claiming that release of the information would "shock" and "confuse" customers.

Then, Google's notoriously private CEO, Eric Schmidt, brushed aside a CNBC's reporter's question about concerns that users are putting too much trust in his company, saying, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

Most disturbing at all is what happened over at Facebook, the social-networking behemoth that now hosts more than 350,000,000 members. Based in part on complaints by government agencies in Canada and Europe, the company announced in July that it had begun testing a more comprehensive and simplified set of privacy settings, promising to give users "even greater control over the information they share and the audiences with whom they share it."

After months of what looked like careful planning, Facebook implemented its new privacy policy and user tools this week.

The announcement landed flat on, well, flat on its face. A chorus of the usual suspects, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California cried multiple fouls, objecting both to the nature of the changes and the way in which they were being imperiously foisted on users. "Under the banner of simplification," said Electronic Privacy Information's Center's Marc Rotenberg, "Facebook has pushed users to downgrade their privacy."

First, a word about the changes themselves. In a detailed exegesis published on Wednesday, EFF's Kevin Bankston divided the revisions into three categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

In the good column, Bankston noted that all Facebook users are being required to review their privacy settings and have been given new tools to simplify the process. For each individual post to their page, users can now limit who among their friends gets to see what. In the bad department, EFF doesn't like the recommended settings, which pretty much let everyone see everything.

The ugly, however, are genuinely ugly. The version of a user's Facebook page open to Facebook members and nonmembers alike will now show the user's name, profile picture, location, and gender, as well as a complete list of her friends. Most of that information can no longer be controlled other than by not providing it in the first place. (Facebook has already backtracked on the public availability of friends information.) And users can no longer opt out of letting Facebook and third-party applications, such as all those quizzes and tests my friends seem to spend most of the day filling out, access at least some information from their account and that of their friends.

Logic behind privacy policy changes
I understand why Facebook wants these changes. Given the sheer number of Facebook users, it's increasingly difficult to find friends when presented with a list of dozens of profiles with matching names and no other information.

As the company moves to find ways of making money from its network, moreover, open access to information about users is not just important--it's essential. Constraining the company's ability to publish and otherwise monetize that information limits the chances Facebook and other social-networking sites can continue to secure funding, compete in a wide-open market, and ultimately survive as a commercial enterprise.

That, at least, is the kind of reasonable explanation for the changes the company could have provided. Instead, it announced the new policy and implemented it at the same time, leaving no opportunity for user review or comment. According to EFF's Bankston, Facebook didn't disclose the creation of the new category of "publicly available information,"--that is, information about a user that cannot be controlled--until "the very day it is forcing the new changes on users." (Facebook did, in fact, allow a one-week comment period on a draft of the new policy, which is more than 5,000 words long, in early November.)

The company's reliance on good relations with its users makes the ham-fisted and tone-deaf nature of these changes both "shocking" and "confusing." After a minirevolt erupted earlier this year over changes to Facebook's terms of service, in which the company seemed to grant itself a more generous license for user data, a chastened CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly reversed course.

More than that, Zuckerberg promised that future modifications would be developed in collaboration with users on an open-source model. "Our terms aren't just a document that protects our rights," Zuckerberg wrote on the company's blog, "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."

Exactly. So why didn't Facebook learn from its own painful lesson? While the company tested the new features with some users and solicited comments on the privacy policy over the last several months, Facebook reported in November that the number of comments it received on its draft proposal "did not reach the threshold to hold a vote." That's not a good thing.

Lessons not learned
Despite the high level of emotion, rightly or wrongly, that users attach to the topic of privacy, the new policy and tools simply arrived, providing some new protections even as existing controls were unceremoniously removed. Did the company think no one would notice? These and other recent privacy gaffes and missteps have unfortunate consequences.

Consumers, already uneasy about how increasingly intimate information is being handled online, will trust companies less, raising the potential for government regulations and new privacy agencies to fill a perceived void. That would be a dangerous result, and ultimately a counterproductive one.

Introducing new layers of regulatory bureaucracy will slow the pace of exciting innovations in information technology that have kept users engaged in the first place. And interjecting government oversight over any data raises the possibility of misuse of that information by other parts of the government, a problem made all too clear by continued revelations about secret surveillance under the wide umbrella of the Patriot Act and other antiterrorism measures.

The reality is that most information services do a good and responsible job of balancing user interests in controlling information access with value derived from transactional and other data that pay for much of what happens online.

Though often implicit, users today trade the use of information about their activities, purchases, and interests for innovative and often free services that analyze and aggregate that data. Such services help cell phone users locate their friends with Loopt, consumers simplify their search for products and services on Amazon and eBay, and connect with each other in the low transaction cost world of social-networking applications such as Facebook and Twitter.

The real problem: PR
The real problem here is not of policy but rather of public relations. Start-up companies increasingly invest early and often in legal counsel, in part to navigate the complex waters of intercompany relationships and in part to avoid potentially lethal litigation from patent trolls, unhappy competitors, and a global army of business regulators.

At the same time, marketing, as well as public and government relations, get little attention, as companies believe that enthusiastic users are now the best form of PR a young company can get and at a price that can't be beat.

Maybe so. But as information exchanges have moved from the purely pedestrian business-to-business networks of the 1980s to the everything-and-everybody sharing that characterizes our increasingly digital lives, companies who discount or dismiss the emotional and even irrational attachment consumers have to information about themselves do so at their peril.

It's not that Google, Facebook, and others need to change in any fundamental way how they do business. They must rather rethink the casual, careless, and often conceited way with which they communicate to users, business partners, regulators, and other stakeholders. When the lawyers lead, everyone loses.

For companies like Facebook today and everyone else tomorrow, users and the data they provide are not just the most valuable asset; they are the only asset. As consumers absorb that fact, they will increasingly use the tools of online communities--ironically, tools provided by social-networking sites themselves--to express their dissatisfaction with unequal exchanges of information for value. Better to collaborate with them now than to negotiate later, at the end of a gun.

Facebook, as Mark Zuckerberg correctly noted, is a kind of virtual nation, where terms of service and other policy documents serve as Constitution and governing law. As such, changes to both policy and practice require honest deliberation and engagement with the residents.

They can no longer be delivered as fait accompli. For one thing, it's pretty easy for virtual citizens to revolt against a government they don't like, or simply pack up and move somewhere less tyrannical. Easier than it is in the physical world, in any case.

Sites owned by Yahoo, AOL, and Google have joined Facebook and MySpace in expelling New York sex offenders from their rolls.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Thursday that Google's Orkut.com, AOL's Bebo.com, and Yahoo's Flickr.com are among 13 additional social-networking sites to use sex offender data available through New York's Electronic Securing and Targeting of Online Predators Act (E-Stop) to find and disable accounts associated with registered sex offenders.

Other companies that have agreed to cooperate include BlackPlanet.com, Classmates.com, Flixster.com, Fotolog.com, hi5.com, MyLife.com, Stickam.com, and Tagged.com.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

(Credit: NY Attorney General's Office)

There are still some holdouts. Cuomo called on other sites, including Friendster.com, Buzznet.com, eSpin.com, Habbo.com, and LiveJournal.com, "to commit to using the list." He urged parents and children to consider not using sites that haven't complied.

On December 1, Facebook and MySpace deleted the accounts of more than 3,500 sex offenders based on the New York law.

By comparing this data with their own user roles, Facebook was able to identify and delete 2,782 registered sex offenders. MySpace deleted 1,796 accounts.

In addition to deleting the accounts of any known registered sex offenders, the companies will turn over information about the accounts to law enforcement officials.

In a statement, Cuomo said: "It is no secret that sexual predators abuse social networking websites to find and manipulate victims and to insinuate themselves into their victims' lives."

The E-Stop law, which was passed in 2008, requires registered sex offenders from New York to disclose their online identities to officials. Information must include e-mail addresses, instant-messaging screen names and social-networking account names. The law also requires the state's Division of Criminal Justice Services to release state sex offender Internet identifiers to social-networking sites and other online services so that they can prescreen or remove individuals who match the list. It also imposes restrictions on sex offender's use of the Internet if the victim was a minor and if the Internet was used to commit the crime. Restrictions include banning the offender from social-networking sites, as well as prohibiting access to online pornography or communicating with anyone with the intention of promoting sexual relations with a minor.

Cuomo is one of several state attorneys general who have expressed concerns about the danger of Internet predators. In 2008, Cuomo and 48 other attorneys general entered into an agreement with MySpace that resulted in the Internet Safety Technical Task Force, whose report concluded that the actual threat of predators is less than many had feared and that kids are far more likely to be harmed by bullying and harassment from other youth. I served on that task force as a representative of ConnectSafley.org, a nonprofit Internet safety organization I help operate.