It wasn't because of high costs, as previously rumored. Essentially, Arrington got screwed. Badly.

But the email went on. Bizarrely, we were being notified that we were no longer involved with the project. Our project. Chandra said that based on pressure from his shareholders he had decided to move forward and sell the device directly through Fusion Garage, without our involvement.

Err, what? This is the equivalent of Foxconn, who build the iPhone, notifiying Apple a couple of days before launch that they'd be moving ahead and selling the iPhone directly without any involvement from Apple.

Chandra also forwarded an internal email from one of his shareholders. My favorite part of the email: "We still acknowledge that Arrington and TechCrunch bring some value to your business endeavor…If he agrees to our terms, we would have Arrington assume the role of visionary/evangelist/marketing head and Fusion Garage would acquire the rights to use the Crunchpad brand and name. Personally, I don't think the name is all that important but you seem to be somewhat attached to the name."

And with that, the entire project self destructed.

Be sure to read the entire story over at TechCrunch. The whole situation is lousy, and FusionGarage certainly doesn't come out looking all that smart in it. I can't imagine anyone wanting to work with them again after this, but I guess we'll have to wait and hear what their side of the story is. [TechCrunch]

Many of the established artists are refusing to hand over their work to Google for no cash based on promises of free exposure.

"I have done gift cards for Target that are in stores nationwide and animations for Nickelodeon that run 24 hours a day worldwide on cable TV," Melinda Beck, an illustrator who is based in Brooklyn, wrote in an e-mail message to Google rejecting its offer. "Both of these jobs were high-profile and gave my work great exposure but both clients still paid me."

It's tough to see Google's position as reasonable here. Sure, these artists will get exposure, but if they can't get paid by Google, who will pay them? The paid-in-exposure deal is something you see offered by student films looking for actors and new publications with no money looking for writers, and it's only justifiable when the employers in question are completely unable to pay for work, and even then it's questionable. But Google? Google can afford it. Exposure is great, but as anyone who's ever tried to make money on the internet can tell you, you can't pay your rent with exposure.

Whatever happened to "Don't Be Evil," Google? [NY Times]

Apparently, they felt that their $45 billion dollars of bailout money entitled them to a luxurious corporate jet that features "plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center." The French-made Dassault Falcon 7X also has an impressive range of 5,950 nautical miles—meaning that it can fly as far East as Saudi Arabia and as far West as Russia.

After learning of their plans to go ahead with the purchase, Obama's officials told Citigroup execs simply to "fix it." Ohhh, man that feels good. Like a satisfying smackdown that all taxpayers can revel in. [Huffington Post via Digg]

We're not too sure why Creative wouldn't want their old products having proper cross OS support implemented. Sure, they do provide beta drivers, but word is they aren't to stable, plus we're guessing their newer, shinier and more expensive replacement devices have something to do with it. Frankly, those won't sell if some asshole is putting down his own, backward compatible drivers to bring old hardware up to speed. Checkout what Creative had to say below:

Daniel_K:

We are aware that you have been assisting owners of our Creative sound cards for some time now, by providing unofficial driver packages for Vista that deliver more of the original functionality that was found in the equivalent XP packages for those sound cards. In principle we don't have a problem with you helping users in this way, so long as they understand that any driver packages you supply are not supported by Creative. Where we do have a problem is when technology and IP owned by Creative or other companies that Creative has licensed from, are made to run on other products for which they are not intended. We took action to remove your thread because, like you, Creative and its technology partners think it is only fair to be compensated for goods and services. The difference in this case is that we own the rights to the materials that you are distributing. By enabling our technology and IP to run on sound cards for which it was not originally offered or intended, you are in effect, stealing our goods. When you solicit donations for providing packages like this, you are profiting from something that you do not own. If we choose to develop and provide host-based processing features with certain sound cards and not others, that is a business decision that only we have the right to make.

Although you say you have discontinued your practice of distributing unauthorized software packages for Creative sound cards we have seen evidence of them elsewhere along with donation requests from you. We also note in a recent post of yours on these forums, that you appear to be contemplating the release of further packages. To be clear, we are asking you to respect our legal rights in this matter and cease all further unauthorized distribution of our technology and IP. In addition we request that you observe our forum rules and respect our right to enforce those rules. If you are in any doubt as to what we would consider unacceptable then please request clarification through one of our forum moderators before posting.

Phil O'Shaughnessy
VP Corporate Communications
Creative Labs Inc.

Yes, the RIAA doesn't think the record companies are making enough and that musicians are clearly making too much. I mean, they get 13% now. Like they deserve 13% for writing and creating the music that people are paying for. Hogwash! Someone had to, you know, encode it. That's worth at least 40%. And hey, these shoes don't shine themselves! So they're pushing to get that rate cut down to a shameful 9%, giving artists even less of a slice of the pie than before.

Of course, Apple, Napster and other large online retailers make the RIAA look like a charity in comparison, with Apple pushing to cut the royalty rate down to an insulting 4%. Yes, Apple wants artists to get a 4% of wholesale royalty rate. Really looking out for those artists, aren't you Steve?

If there was ever a time for a band to try going completely independent, this is it. Why give over 90% of your income away to greedy sleazebags when you can sell your music online without the middleman? This industry needs to be burned to the ground and built back up again; it's broken and it seems less and less likely that it'll be able to be fixed. [Hollywood Reporter via Slashdot]