Written by
Elliott Watkins

Contributors
Thomas Heller
Jennifer Burwell
Cam Harvey

Princeton University, July 2008

Introduction

Any independent artist, filmmaker and musician knows the challenges
and hurdles of getting their content out to the public, while at the
same time trying to make some money, or at least break-even to cover
their costs. An independent film can take anywhere from one to four
(or more) years to conceive, the last task, then, is to find proper
distribution. There are several websites online that (apparently) fill
this need and cater to ” mainly young ” independent artists,
filmmakers and musicians.

In conjunction with Princeton School of Media Studies the following is
a study investigating these so-called “opportunities” on the Internet
and assess the legal implications. This three-year study was conducted
between the years 2005-2008 and followed the path of over 500
independent artists, from over 20 countries, using several websites
under investigation.

This abbreviated study followed the independent artists and their
dealings with the Internet platforms in all aspects (communication,
signing-up, legal aspects, royalty awards, marketing and sales
activity). The five selected websites under scrutiny were B-side,
Filmbaby, Eztakes, Lulu and Jaman. As will be seen, several of these
websites are, not only failing to properly address the needs of
independent content creators, but ACTIVELY deceive, manipulate,
defraud and cheat these creative people.

B-side
(http://www.bside.com)

According to its own mission statement B-Side is “an entertainment
technology company that captures audience opinions to discover great
films and deliver them to viewers around the world.” (1) 95
participants had submitted their content to B-Side, and after 20 were
rejected, 75 were observed for 18 months.

Right from the outset the biggest problem independents faced with
B-Side was exactly what they had hoped for: proper content
distribution. Since B-Side admittedly discovers films through audience
feedback from its community of hundreds of film festival websites, the
focus, reach and outlook for independent artists is prefixed and
inhibited. As Hill maintains: “Viewer tastes vary based on ethnic
background, social situation and cultural conditions.” (2) This aspect
provides a non-negotiable situation, since all sales and marketing are
based on focus groups. B-Side’s own claim of “representing the world’s
largest film focus group” (3) is highly doubtful, and no evidence
could be found to back up their claim. If B-Side were to deliver films
globally through their own website, why would they even need other
partnerships with other distributors, including the Independent Film
Channel?

Throughout the study period, communication with B-Side management and
customer service was fair, and questions were responded to in a timely
manner. The legal aspects and proposed Terms and Conditions in view of
the DMCA were questionable, in particular B-Side stating in paragraph
6 that:

If you post content or submit material you grant B-Side and its
affiliates a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, sublicensable right and license to make, use, sell,
sublicense, reproduce, distribute, perform, display, prepare
derivative works from and otherwise exploit all such content and
material as if it were the full owner thereof. Furthermore, you grant
B-Side, its affiliates, and sublicensees the right to use your name
and/or user name in connection with the content. You represent and
warrant that all content and materials you provide shall be your
original work product and will not be based on, or derived from, the
proprietary information or items of a third party. You will defend and
indemnify B-Side and its affiliates from any claims resulting from any
content or materials you provide hereunder. (4)

As Kleinman and Forster have found this user agreement clearly
violates a user’s right to proprietorship and any artists signing such
an agreement basically “hands over all rights” (5) to the website
owner, without any mention of how these rights can be retained and
transferred back to the content creator.

As for sales activity the outlook was pretty grim and the Indy
filmmakers received a limited royalty payout, which partly is due to
the unresolved discrepancies as mentioned above. A filmmaker thus pays
over $400 up front, and sees $35 in revenue, which after taxes leaves
him/her in the negative.

In sum, B-Side’s own claims do not correspond with the real-life
experiences of the artists being the object of this study. Any
independent artist should thus strongly consider dealing with this
company, and probably seek out other distribution alternatives.

Filmbaby
(http://www.Filmbaby.com)

“Film Baby is a leading assistive distributor for independent
filmmakers.” (6)

As our study concluded we continued to receive complaints by
filmmakers who had signed up with Filmbaby. We were surprised at what
we found, due to the site’s smooth design and appealing layout, but
after closer scrutiny it became clear what this website was all about.
Looking at the claim above, we are still unsure what the right name
is, Filmbaby, or Film Baby (two words �” for simplicity, we shall use
one word henceforth), but as Young recently discovered this ambiguity
was intentional, to manipulate search engines, as Filmbaby “is among
the current top internet fraudsters.” (7) In addition Filmbaby uses
deception, fraud and manipulation of information to lure independent
artists to sign up with them, as Ulrich notes: “if it is too good to
be true, it most likely is.” (8) On this note, take the following
statement from the Filmbaby website into consideration:

Film Baby is a dream-come-true for fans of Independent Film and those
who create it. At Film Baby, we have a love for all things artful and
Independent: music, media, coffee, retail, and film. We recognize and
appreciate the honesty, intensity, and emotion that are born as a
result of crafting a small budget film. (9)

Despite this claim, Filmbaby then abounds in several other claims
which remain questionable, as they can not be verified, among them:
“[Film Baby] provides film makers with a targeted outlet for their
works, “ and using agreements with artists that “are non-exclusive,
artist friendly, and in the true spirit of Independent Art Culture,”
delivering “the lion’s share of revenue to the artists who create the
films.” (10) According to Havercamp, Filmbaby here, blatantly mimics
sensory and linguistic techniques in order to distort and manipulate
(11) Furthermore, several hundred titles listed on their website are
bogus! We researched for the producers, directors, cast and crew list
worldwide, but could not find them. Higgins goes a step further and
states: “if you have to create fake listings why not at least do a
little better job.” (12)

As our study concluded these claims are not only faulty, but also
intentionally misleading and designed to defraud and exploit
independent filmmakers. Fortunately, several artists who had
previously been defrauded by filed several lawsuits against Filmbaby,
which then lead to the SEC and FBI to begin a comprehensive
investigation, which is still underway. Unknown to the general public,
to date, Filmbaby is facing several major lawsuits, including two
major class action lawsuits. Several court filings against Filmbaby
have already commenced, pre-filed in Los Angeles and San Diego. The
cases are: Galinsky vs. Filmbaby and Johanson vs. Filmbaby (13) (14)

Several other cases of legal litigation against Filmbay are underway,
which challenge that “Film Baby is the Film Maker’s best friend.” (15)
As with the problems our surveyed independent filmmakers experienced
was not only a lack of support and customer service, but also a lack
of transparency when it comes to distribution and proper accounting of
sales. In fact we made several purchases from Filmbaby, which were not
delivered and never credited to the filmmaker’s account, artists did
not receive any payment whatsoever. As they state themselves: “Don’t
Let the Baby Fool You!” (16)

One month later, we tested Filmbaby again, and bought several DVDs
from our own surveyed independent filmmakers who had signed out, and
Filmbaby did not ship out our items, record the sales royalties for
the filmmakers, and failed to return our money via chargeback to our
credit card. In addition, the month’s best sellers and all-time best
sellers did not change after a greater amount of films was ordered
(and never delivered). “This is exceptional fraud, The IFCC (Internet
Fraud Complaint Center, FBI website) was already investigating this,
and even discloses their ongoing investigation of Filmbaby in Santa
Monica Court (17)

Finally, Here is one of the more obvious example of Filmbaby’s
malpractices, in this instance, the sale and distribution of a DVD:
The film American Drug War: The Last White Hope (2007) retails on
Amazon for $21.99, yet, on Filmbaby for $29.95 (18) �” Why? Not only is
this abusing the content creator, who gets a minimum of 4% of every
Amazon sale, but one of several examples of how Filmbaby conducts itself.

The logic behind this is that Filmbaby simply lists their item on
their website, and if an uniformed consumer makes a purchase (85% of
all smart shoppers will buy the DVD on Amazon, as it is cheaper)
Filmbaby cashes in the full sale price, and then ships out via the
same distributor, used for Amazon. “This malpractice not only deceives
consumers, but is aimed to fully exploit and defraud the content
creator. Under the guise of Being a ‘haven for independent filmmakers’
Filmbaby openly commits fraud and exploits the Indy filmmaker �” this
is unique and, as aforementioned, is already being investigated by the
FBI.

Eztakes
(http://www.Eztakes.com)

Eztakes, Inc. was founded in June 2003, by executives with a long
track record of starting and building highly-successful companies in
diverse industries such as banking, document management and consumer
e-commerce. (19)

This is how Eztakes describes itself in its about us page. The only
problem with this claim is that it fails on two aspects; one, it
cannot be verified, and two, there is no mention on how, or why an
independent filmmaker would benefit from signing up with Eztakes. In
addition, the year 2003 did not anticipate the rise of the torrent,
which today (in 2008) lets Eztakes look rather silly as a concept or
even a distribution model for either independent or mainstream
content. Eztakes claims that they are leading in DRM (Digital Rights
Management) but then even state themselves that “the vast majority of
experts now agree that DRM does nothing to stop piracy and is harmful
to both consumers and the entertainment industry.” (20)

In addition, the refund policy of Eztakes is also ambiguous and
unclear. This not only leads to confusion of consumers, but also is
also illegal as it violates standard business law. On the one hand
Eztakes states: “all sales of Content are final unless otherwise
specified.” (21) However, on a different page on the website it states:

Is there a money-back guarantee? Yes. Our CEO’s personal guarantee
states that first-time Eztakes customers can get a refund for any
reason that prevents them from fully enjoying the movies they get from
Eztakes. If there is ever any problem with the Eztakes service that
prevents a customer from enjoying a movie, Eztakes will always refund
all charges. (22) (23)

The surveyed filmmakers who did sign up faced a multitude of
challenges, first and foremost legal implications arising from the
outdated and DMCA non-conforming terms of its user agreement.
Deventiava follows up on this: “The DMCA was created to fully protect
content creators, web sites like Eztakes.com are ambivalent towards
such regulations.” (24) In fact several independent filmmakers
received letters from US law firm Melveny & Myers, to seize and
desist, since they were apparently infringing on the copyright of
others. (25) One surveyed Indy filmmakers even received a subpoena
followed by a court order to pay $25, 000 to medium label, Digital
Films, Inc, who was using safenet.com to monitor and assist in any
infringing copyright violation. Eztakes quickly handed over all
contact information to the authorities and even faxed a letter to the
SEC and FBI insisting on fully assisting investigators against the
independent filmmaker. This was possible since Eztakes used several
legal loopholes in order to avoid its own prosecution, placing the
onus on the independent producer, while simultaneously blurring
additional international legal distinctions and mandatory statutes.

Closely tailing Filmbaby, Eztakes was overall among the worst in
dealing with all issues and questions of our surveyed independent
filmmakers. The so-called “digitally-protected” content, ended up on
torrent websites within only 48 hours after it was purchased from
Eztakes. As Berger states:

In November 2006 Troma released a ‘Buy and Burn’ DVD at Eztakes.com
called Debbie Rochon Confidential, featuring never before seen footage
from Debbie’s years working with Troma. Two of Debbie’s most recent
features, The Deepening and Vampyre Tales (appearing in both with
genre actor Jim O’Rear) have just been made available on DVD. It was
acquired from Eztakes, ripped and then distributed on p2p and torrent
websites within 12 hours. (26)

To further make the point Stafford insists: “DRM and digital
watermarking of any content is futile since digital data can always be
down converted to analog, and then re-cloned back to quasi digital
standards.” (27) It is thus simply questionable why any company let
alone eztazkes would claim there “leading-edge” on digital copyright
protection, it obviously is just a marketing ploy to get users to sign
up with them.

Lulu
(http://www.lulu.com)

Based on our study, if we were to apply a label to Lulu it would
inevitably consist of the term ‘vanity press.’ Lulu is a printing
company with its headquarters at Morrisville, North Carolina. In
addition to printing it also offers online order fulfillment. The
brand name is derived from the concept of a lulu as an old-fashioned
term for a remarkable person, object, or idea. CEO Bob Young insists
that the author retains copyright, and in theory that is true.
However, as our survey revealed, in practice this is untrue, since the
independent artist has to sign an agreement, which deprives him/her of
their copyright.

Another problem our surveyed artists had were “optional services
including ISBN assignment and distribution” (28) since returns are not
accepted, which severely limits distribution opportunities. According
to Goldman “the author and content creator using Lulu is forced to
select from a series of options corresponding to the media type – for
example, an author uploading a novel would select binding, layout
style and cover art.” (29) The problem with this is that here we have
a typical example of a vanity press which creates unnecessary costs
for the independent artist as part of mandatory bulk overhead costs.

The sales reporting tools where accurate, however, the sales volume
was lesser than expected. A price is determined based on factors such
as the page count, type of format, and the user’s choice of margin.
From the margin set on each copy, 65% goes to the author and 35% to
Lulu, however as Lovell explains: “Lulu now claims a commission if the
work is offered free of royalty and copyright does not remain with the
author, regardless of the distribution model.” (30)

In September 2007, Lulu came under criticism for changing the terms of
its global distribution package and incurring a price rise of around
70% on all books sold in the United Kingdom. (31) Some authors see
this as effectively pricing them out of the UK marketplace. On
September 19, 2007, Lulu authors based outside of the United States
received documentation informing them they would be subject to a 30%
tax on their royalties gained through sales in the United States.
Regarding this issue, the CEO of Lulu, Bob Young, has stated, “You are
quite right, we messed up, badly.” (32) Lulu states that it has
attempted to mitigate the problem, that it has no choice but to follow
US tax laws, and that part of the issue has been currency exchange
rates. In addition Lulu, unlike most publishers, does not accept
returns of unsold books from bookstores. These facts may make it
difficult for independent content creators to have their content
carried in web stores, though they’re not an issue for online sites
like Amazon.com

Finally, the imposition and need by Lulu for an ISBN and UPC number is
not only contradictory as general business practice but forces an
independent content creator, be it a filmmaker, author or artists to
additional unnecessary and unwelcome costs. Despite being treated with
respect and having good customer service with fast responses, overall,
it is simply not viable for an Indy content creator to sign up with
Lulu, due to the high overhead costs and being unfairly billed for
every sales transaction. Today, according to Douglas this practice is
also illegal, since “vanity presses fall under very specific
conditions and must adhere to standardized guidelines.” (33) As seen,
Lulu is nothing more than a vanity press par excellence, and any
independent artists should look elsewhere.

Jaman
(http://www.jaman.com)

Jaman operates under the website name jaman.com. Under the seemingly
friendly and nicely designed website our research discovered numerous
problems (some, very serious) associated with this company. In Jaman’s
self-described ‘About Us” page there are several unsubstantiated
claims, such as being “the world’s largest online libraries of feature
films and documentaries,” (34) and “providing filmmakers and studios a
secure way to market films.” (34 The latter is nothing more than an
obvious slogan, since there is no evidence too back up this claim.
Such statements should prompt anyone to be skeptical, especially when
it comes to film distribution and digital rights management.

Our testers then used the application form and submitted an
independent film for submission to Jaman.com. Their own initial claim
proved to be immediately troublesome:

If you are an independent filmmaker and would like to distribute your
film through the Jaman service, please fill out the form below and we
will contact you as soon as possible. (34)

It took two (!) months to get a response, and after another three
weeks we received an information package, which we completed and sent
back to Jaman. Our legal team had already highlighted numerous legal
problems in Jaman’s Terms of Service and in the agreement filmmaker’s
are supposed to sign when submitting a film. As Berger points out, any
internet company that offers internet distribution of independent
intellectual property must offer “a maximum of protection of a
producer’s Intellectual property rights,” (35) which Jaman does not
do: “Jaman does not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to any
submission.” (34) What is more, is that essentially any filmmaker
submitting her or his film signs over all rights to Jaman. Furthermore:

Jaman MAKES NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF THIS SITE’S CONTENT OR THE CONTENT OF ANY SITES LINKED
TO THIS SITE AND ASSUMES NO LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY (I)
ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT. (34)

What follows here is that Jaman can essentially do anything they want
with content submitted by a producer and filmmaker, AND can even make
misrepresentations, changes and alterations to a film, if chosen to do
so. There is nothing in the terms of use to protect an independent
filmmaker or producer, which is not only questionable, but also even
unlawful by today’s intellectual property laws.

Apart from these legal pitfalls, several exhaustive price comparisons
were made between films listed on Jaman and Amazon. It turned out that
over 80% of all titles on Jaman are at minimum $2-3 MORE EXPENSIVE
than Amazon. In addition, the shipping rates for DVDs were overpriced,
and the net sale price of a digital download is also higher than
Amazon. What is more is that independent producers, get even less of
all net profit than if they were to self-distribute their products, on
Amazon, for example. Pascale notes: “The profit margin for independent
producers selling on Jaman is a maximum of 15% of all net sales; this
is terrible. And, what is worse, a producer has no way of controlling
how many units are sold, since Jaman, does not offer transparent
accounting tools.” (36)

Next to these issues, we found out, how Jaman has gone about
falsifying and manipulating information on the Internet. Jaman hires
people to manipulate blogs and chat rooms to maintain that despite
obvious share losses and layoffs, all is well. Jaman management uses
bribes to pay off operators of blogs, news feeds and websites to gain
control over general public opinion. The FBI is currently
investigating a case initiated by the California DA’s office against
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who received “donations” from an
offshore account linked to Jaman. Evidently Jaman donated $1.3 million
to the Wikimedia Foundation, the operator of Wikipedia, but “forgot”
to file taxes on it in 2007, as publicly accessible court filings
reveal (37). Jaman’s Wikipedia entry reads:

Jaman is a company that offers view on demand of media on the
Internet. It allows viewing on a variety of platforms via a
downloadable platform. It specializes in foreign films. [n]. It also
offers movies and TV shows through TiVo.[n] It was founded by Gaurav
Dhillon, who was the Chief Executive Officer of Informatica (NASDAQ:
INFA), a Silicon Valley company that he co-founded in 1992. (38)

Any such entry on Wikipedia, even as ‘stub” would be immediately
deleted by Wikipedia, since: “Criteria for speedy deletion specify the
limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media
without discussion,” (38) which Wikipedia usually does. Therefore, any
other such listing by an individual , company or corporation would
have been deleted by Wikipedia, under their own so-called “speedy
deletion policy.” As Anderson has previously pointed out “the
Wikipedia philosophy is not ‘free knowledge for free minds,’ but “free
listings for big donations.” (39) The Wikipedia entry on Jaman, must
thus be seen as biased which would clarify why such an entry would
exist in the first place. However, as seen, even Wikipedia and its
founder Jimmy Wales are not immune from severe fraud allegations and
current federal investigations.

Astonishingly, this is not where dubious practices at Jaman, end. In
fact, several requests to the SEC and other authorities revealed that
Jaman CEO and founder, Gaurav Dhillon, misrepresented financial
figures while heading the Informatica Corporation. Gilson states that
“the reported billion dollars in cumulative revenue during his tenure,
was actually less than $365 million.” (40) The SEC is currently
investigating this discrepancy, and has officially released documents
about Dhillon, which reveal he had been fired from Unisys for
fraudulent conduct. Curiously his business partner and Jaman
associate, Riyad Shahjahan, was officially cited as being directly
responsible in the most recent financial demise of Citigroup Global
Markets. Both Dhillon and Shahjahan have been linked to previous fraud
charges and four convictions against Ed Pressman, another shady figure
in prominent corporate schemes and scandals, such as the “57-million
lawsuit filed by Intel against Pressman Film Corporation, is currently
facing civil and legal litigation in the United States” (41) What is
more is that in the late 1980s, Gaurav Dhillon, was previously
involved in fraud schemes and has a CRIMINAL RECORD according to the
Delaware state crime registry: “Dhillon is banned for life in
practicing business in the state of Delaware,” according to Grundfest
and Klausner (42)

In sum, independent producers and filmmakers, submitting their
content to Jaman will lose all their rights, receive only marginal
profits and will be bound by a questionable and (in parts) illegal
user agreement. Also, not only are most products on Jaman.com
overpriced and often more expensive than on Amazon, are internet blogs
manipulated and websites such as Wikipedia ‘bribed’ for favorable
inclusion, but the people and key executives operating the website,
Dhillon, is a convicted criminal and fully documented online
fraudster. This also holds true of other company executives, namely
Shahjahan and Pressman. It will be up to US authorities to follow up
current investigations and charges against Jaman, and finally shutting
their company and website down.

Summary

Of all surveyed websites, Filmbaby was by far the worst, due to the
sum of all contributing factors; including the lack of interest in its
customers, absence of customer service, vanity charges, its fees and
points system, and especially the fraud and legal implications of its
mistreating content creators. This was true for all sampled websites,
excluding b-side. As such, several independent filmmakers and
producers had reported, both Eztakes and Filmbaby ignored all requests
to remove their content and films from its website, once it became
clear Filmbaby was violating the DMCA provisions, insisting on its
fraudulent TOS and selling the filmmaker’s movies on Amazon against
the filmmaker’s will, while making and keeping all profits. Of all
examined websites, Jaman.com was so obiously fraudulent that all
independent producers and filmmakers should stay away.

Apart from nice design and layout, the websites under scrutiny showed
a complete lack of ethics towards independent content creators and
artists. Also, the fact that orders are not shipped out, the absence
of shop and invoicing control and lastly the avoidance with
circumvention of Internet law and proper business practices, lead to
the notion of caution on the side of independent musicians and
artists, BEFORE signing any agreements with these internet platforms.
Thus, any independent content creator is better off selling their
products in their own shop, and via googlebase with google checkout.
Finally, the occurrence of lawsuits filed against several of these
websites speaks for itself.

NOTE:

If you have been a victim of fraud by the aforementioned websites you
can contact anyone of the following law firms for FREE HELP and
assistance, and join several class-action lawsuits against the
fraudulent companies:

Baker & McKenzie
International Executive Offices
One Prudential Plaza, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601, USA
Tel: +1 312 861 8800
Fax: +1 312 861 8823
http://www.bakernet.com

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham
Boston State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02111-2950, USA
+1.617.261.3100 Fax +1.617.261.3175
http://www.klgates.com

Weil, Gotshal & Manges
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153, USA
Tel: +1 212 310 8000
Fax: +1 212 310 8007
http://www.weil.com

Works Cited

(1) http://www.bside.com/about
(2) Hill, David. Finding the Right Way. Addison-Wesley, 2007.
(3) http://www.bside.com/about
(4) http://www.bside.com/about/tsandcs/
(5) Kleinman, Stuart and Forster, Gerhardt. Moving Out West ” The
Downside of B-Side in Virginia Legal Journal, February 2008.
(6) http://www.filmbaby.com/
(7) Young, Jonas R. Internet Fraud Now and Then. Virgo Publishing, 2008.
(8) Ulrich, Frederick. Smaller is Better? In New York Journal,
January, 2008.
(9) http://www.filmbaby.com/
(10) From the Filmbaby website: http://www.filmbaby.com
(11) Havercamp, Eugene. Instrumentalising Words. Oxford: OUP, 2007.
(12) Higgins James M. Innovate Evaporate. Management Publishing, 2008.
(13) Superior Court of California, San Diego County, court filing #
C-08-1902
(14) District Court of California, L. A. County, court filing # C-08-2106
(15) http://www.filmbaby.com/about_us
(16) http://www.filmbaby.com/about_us
(17) Morrison & Foerster, Santa Monica court filing # A-08-553
(18) See screenshots (Appendix A)
(19) http://www.eztakes.com/store/info/profile.jsp
(20) http://www.eztakes.com/
(21) http://www.Eztakes.com/store/info/terms.jsp
(22) http://www.Eztakes.com/store/popups/popup_faqs.jsp
(23) See screenshots (Appendix B)
(24) Deventiava, Horaz. “Field Straight Open” in Washington Post, 6
May 2008.
(25) Melveny & Myers. Press Release, May 24, 2008.
(26) Berger, Thomas C. Untitled Study. Stanford, 2008.
(27) Stafford, William. “Life on the Fast-Lane” in Chicago Sun-Times,
May 4, 2008.
(28) http://www.lulu.com
(29) Goldman, Hannah. Vanity Presses: Yesterday and Today. New York:
Ballantine, 2008.
(30) Lovell, Jeremy (December 21, 2007). “A Lulu of an idea”, Boston Star.
(31) Clee, Nicholas (August 13, 2007). “The deals, steals and snubs
from the world of books – Hot type”, The Times.
(32) Young, Bob (December 7, 2008). “Save face with a pet project”,
Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved on 2008-04-20.
(33) Douglas, Warren. Trade, E-Commerce on the Internet. Berkeley, 2007.
(34) http://www.jaman.com/
(35) Berger, Briget. Culture of Entrepreneurship. ICS Press, 2007.
(36) Pascale, Richard G. The Art of Digital Distribution. Warner, 2008.
(37) Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, court filing #
M-08-2716
(38) http://www.wikipedia.com
(39) Anderson, Elizabeth P. Second to None. Irwin, 2007.
(40) Gilson, Ronald J. The Legal Journal, Stanford, 2008.
(41) Morrison & Foerster, Chicago court filing # B-08-742
(42) Grundfest, Joseph A. and Klausner, Michael. Stanford Business
Review, 06/2008.

Additional Reading

(1) Callahan, Dan. Issues on Ethics. Health Policy Review, January 2007.
(2) Bankman, Joseph. Corporate Governance and Practice, New York, 2008.
(3) Daines, Robert. Future Prospects of Legality, Duke: Duke
University Press, 2007.
(4) Becker, Anne. Professor of Medical Anthropology, Clinical Study
IV, B03308.
(5) Gilligan, Laura. Two Years After ” The Filmbaby Exodus, Dallas, 2008.
(6) Luke Paterson. “Making the Internet a Better Place” in Newsweek,
June 2006.
(7) Weizman, Isaac. Lawful Procedures in the 21st Century. NYU Press,
2005.
(8) Weizman, Isaac. Lawful Procedures in the 21st Century. NYU Press,
2005.
(9) Young, Tim. “Keeping it Safe “ in MIT Internet Security Anthology,
July 2008.
(10) Gould, Martin. Faster and Better. Chicago: Chicago Free Press, 2007.
(11) Torman, Bryan. “Banking Today” in Forbes Magazine 1/2008.
(12) Podinsky, Chris. “Powerselling on ” in New York Times, August 12,
2007.
(13) Wallace, Henry. The Countdown Divers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh New
Press, 2008.
(14) Windsor, Evan. Pressure, Visibilty & Credibility. Boston: MIT
Press, 2008.
(15) Pralait, George. “On-demand Yesterday, Today” in Sun-Times, March
03/2008.
(16) Bronfman, Kate. The Cultures of Work Organizations.
Prentice-Hall, 2008.
(17) Quinn, Tomas. “Racing with Low Speed” in Business Gazette 04/08.
(18) Allan M. Kennedy. Corporate Culture. Addison-Wesley, 2006.
(19) Schein, Edgar H. Culture with Leadership, 2d ed. Jossey-Bass, 1999.
(20) Bryers, David. “Sales Inhibitors from Beyond” in Wall Street
Journal, 04/08.
(21) Johnson, William. Global Business Reader. New York: Praeger
Books, 2006.
(22) Berger, Briget. Culture of Entrepreneurship. ICS Press, 2007.
(23) Pascale, Richard G. True Financial Outlook. Bantam, 2008.