Cataphora…Yummy! Part I

I’m in love with H5 and not just because of their killer website and name that has more cowbell than I can handle, but I also am having special moments with Cataphora.

In the run up to the Sedona Conference, I’m taking another look at legal tech from the perspective of what lawyers really need and I’m pretty sure that the teeny weeny email application I’m writing (prototype due out at the end of the summer) is on the right track.

That being said, Cataphora really does have the right approach and are FIXING IT! “It” being the way search and retrieval of meaningful content is and ought to be done.

So, understand their mission, if you choose to accept it (and you should):

Defining principle

Cataphora’s success and very existence are based upon one defining principle. This arose from a conceptual breakthrough that was simply stated, yet proved to be radical in its practical effects. This idea was that, in order to truly understand a document, you have to know about the circumstances in which it arose. In other words, you have to understand its context.

The negative

Ok, they’re a bit … oh, I don’t know whiny and snarky,

Trustworthiness is a core value in the legal marketplace and at Cataphora. We strongly recommend examining all vendor claims carefully. One way to do that is by looking at how their website used to look. The Wayback Machine makes that easy – just go here and enter the URL for the vendor in which you are interested.

I mean, really! Who CARES what a website looked like in the Wayback Machine?! Is this really part of the E-DISCOVERY dog/pony show to which unsuspecting clients are subjected? Didn’t think so.

If that’s the standard, then most legal tech projects would be doomed, because when some of us were using computers in litigation, some others of us were still in high school counting spots. And, of course, some others of us were practicing law and making googobs of money (ahem!). Besides, an appearance on the Brewster Kahle show is not really an indicator of algorithmic quality. It just means you’re lucky, really smart or have your own private Tardis.

OK, so I don’t think Cataphora folks are lucky. I think they’re really, really smart. Buuuut, it’s not exactly rocket science. Maybe it was 10 years ago, but not any more. Ever looked at Digg Labs?

Two Patents? Hmmm. Gotta think about that one.

I’ve read both, but now I’d better look at the pictures, because this is one area where I’m pretty sure there’s so much out there now that these patents may not hold much water. Not a huge fan of business method patents anyway, but when they involve stuff that seems to be open-sourced to the hilt, it gives me pause.

I could be so incredibly wrong, so I’ll take another look, but at first blush, what they write about on the site seems right out of Collective Intelligence, a book I keep next to the bedside, cuz I’m that much of a dork.

Back to the Positive

But, Elizabeth Charnock, the founder of Cataphora is a much bigger dork, said with all sorts of love, so I think worship might still be in order.

Plus, she’s a girl, and that makes her AWESOME! And, a little scary.

I love Cataphora because….

they “get” the wisdom of letting computers do what they do best. And, computers don’t really care whether you have 1 or 2 terabytes. Which means that you can leave your data unculled, and the computer will keep chugging along.

Not only that, but once the data has been marked as “non-responsive,” it can still be used for all sorts of things. Like weighting. And, making your useful dataset searching smarter. Wanna know how? I bet you do!

Call me! No, really: call me.

So, let’s get real: [ bold statement ] there’s absolutely NO real reason to cull ESI ! [ /bold statement ]

I found this really HYSTERICAL presentation the other day entitled The Real Cost of Privilege Review ( and here) and all it did was make me think of lollipops. Read it and weep.

I want to know who out there is wasting soooo much money…so I can sign them up as clients, because this sort of process is so yesterday, even your 10-yr old could probably re-engineer it to get better and more cost-effective results. I mean, hasn’t anyone ever played pick up sticks???

So, why am I adamant that people stop culling? Because it’s like trying to speak French without any understanding of grammar.

To be more precise, I’m advocating that lawyers stop culling at the first tier, as if their lives depended upon a massive reduction in terabytes. I’m suggesting that culling ought to be done by the computer, and that valuable metadata (in a really, really board sense) ought to be retained until the end of the project. I’m intimating that the document corpus is a body and it’s integrity depends upon the entirety of its members.

In other words, in Cataphora-lingo:

Cataphora is the first and only provider to develop deep analytics (not mere data statistics or simple email widgets) that give insight into the facts expressed by the ESI dataset. True analytics can (among many other things) detect individual and organizational “heartbeats” and de facto organizational substructures, evaluate typical versus anomalous behavior, assess consistency and variation in an organization’s processes, and detect patterns of data deletion.

If you’ve got lawyers doing the culling and searching, here’s yer sign: you’re going about it the wrong way. It’s like taking a hachet to an old growth forest of oak with no appreciation for the vital role played by acorns.

I say, hire yourself a legally-trained person who knows about taxonomies and understands the difference between DATA, INFORMATION and ARGUMENT.

Lawyers, do not. Not unless they’ve taken “Data 101.” They usually work bass ackwards and try to squeeze everything into theory, instead of first trying to understand what they’ve got.

This is where Cataphora’s mission is key: understand the forest before you start cutting trees.

Thus, sayeth the Mighty Snarker, thereby ending-eth the lesson!

My LinkedIn Groups : Fix It!

This is an interesting thing. LinkedIn has all these groups available, and I know some of them are active, but there doesn’t seem to be a dashboard where one can gather statistics and message frequency.

The unanswered question is “which of my 16 groups are active now”?

LinkedIn screenshot

Sure, I get (and ignore) the emails from individuals. Over the course of a day or week, they build up in my short-term memory until the cache needs cleared. Then, there’s a straw/camel moment and I have to log on.

I realized today, however, that there is only limited support for actual group connectivity. For one, I can’t find any of those emails without having to click each and every group!

I ignore the emails because I have to go to LinkedIn to see what they’re about anyway…so why do I get the emails? Why don’t I just get a reminder to log in every day. Which would get ignored.

This is what I get: ” Share | Discussions | News | Updates | Members | Settings | Leave Group “

This is what I want:

Group/Logo	Recent Posts	Posts I’ve Read	Posts I’ve Not Read
ADR, Conflict Resolution and Mediation Exchange
ASIAN LITIGATION & LEGAL SUPPORT NETWORK
Asian Studies Group
Attorney Recruiter Consortium – from the perspective of both attorneys and recruiters
Bujinkan
Information Architecture Institute (IAI)
Japan Legal
Knowledge Management for Legal Professionals
Law and Legal Open Networkers
Legal Blogging
Legal IT Professionals
LegalIT
On Startups – The Community For Entrepreneurs
SF Bay Area Ivy Plus Alumni
Taxonomy Community of Practice
Women in eDiscovery

See the amount of time it took to hand code this table? I could have spent it on LinkedIn.

What I’m saying is that LinkedIn doesn’t seem to want to be a forum provider. Sure, the functionality in there, but the heart isn’t in it.

User Fatigue and Indices

Today, “The Mighty Snarker” ( as I have recently been dubbed )..:o))…went back to the Michigan Bar website and with an abundance of curiosity started clicking around to see what was new.

What I found was a section on “Practice Management Resource Center.” Again, with an amount of curiosity that directly contradicts my list of objectives for the day, I started clicking.

It took a long time to find anything.

Now, were I not obsessed with taxonomies and findability these days, I might continue clicking for quite a while, happily doing my lipsticked-pig-rooting-for-truffles act and wondering what my $350 plus pays for every year.

But, what I found was an outdated site that still uses cold fusion pages.

COLD FUSION PAGES!

Lawyers are busy. Their staff are busy. So, it shouldn’t take 6 (and yes, I counted) clicks to get to a PDF of the Business Plan Outline, with three of those clicks on a teeny tiny little plus sign.

I know why I can’t take cold fusion pages: they’re relics. But, I have a fondness for the State Bar of Michigan. So this isn’t a snark, so much as a plea on behalf of my brethern and sistern: fix it!

Here’s what I’d do in three acts:

• Give the user a choice on how to view the content, –then just give it to them in 3-clicks or less by replacing the Russian doll model with visible lists. Pull out the Checklists and Guidelines, List and Articles. Make them top level items.
• Combine the downloads section together with the lending library and legal software sections
• Add the “latest content” to the home page and/or text it out to the people who use it

Law 2.0 : Yeah…But No..But Yeah..

Now that Law 2.0 seems to be taking off, there’s a good opportunity to talk about what Law 2.0 is, could be and is in danger of becoming. It’s the start of a long discussion. This is a work in progress so it might change over the next week.

If you’re really interested, please subscribe to the RSS feed and leave your comments!

Is Law 2.0 gonna be alright ??

To my thinking, the objective is the same as Web 2.0: give people data, data and more data on the theory that everyone benefits when law is interpreted and disseminated in a distributed way. Yet, there’s a nagging suspicion that the procedural aspects of Law 2.0 are gonna cause difficulties, even if the objective is loverly.

In fact, to be responsible, we just have to ask the (tepid) question whether there might be something about law that makes it different than real estate, product and service reviews and satellite maps.

More crassly: is there something in the process of retasking public legal data through open source technology in order to sell it back to the public in a cooler form that doesn’t quite work when it comes to law?

Well, the answer just might be “yeah…but no…but yeah…”

While researching the Avvo launch (see following article), my attention was literally snatched away by a Google item, which lead to an e-mail thread (part of which is reproduced below). Read it, and you’ll see why that article follows this one, instead of the other way around.

What’s all the fuss about?

The problem that many Law 2.0 sites are going to face is going to appear on several fronts. A big one is going to concern the distinction between public data and public data for purposes of commercial internet dissemination. How well the law-based Web 2.0 companies weather the storm will determine how well Law 2.0 does in the long-run.

I leave for another article the question of databases, because there is a nascent revolution in law, thanks in large part to the tandem decision by many courts to digitize the presentation of pleadings and evidence coupled with the decision to publish opinions on-line, rather than exclusively through the established publishers (West, Lexis, etc.) and the decision by many legislatures to publish legislation on line, again at the expense of established commercial publishers. Add to that the blog system, which frees many legal commentators from the law review and treatise outlets, and the smackdown gets closer everyday. Nolo doesn’t yet know what it started, but they’re getting there.

How Web 2.0 is Law 2.0??

Ok, so the question for today is: what is Law 2.0? Is it a legal-topic site based on Web 2.0 website OR an Internet-based website that deals with legal information in a fundamentally new way. I think there’s a HUGE difference, epending upon how you look at the outcome. Time will tell whether the money follows something new, or whether the future brings more Web 2.0 sites with a legal theme.

First, let’s recap some of the salient features of Web 2.0, in a really glossed over (but hopefully relevant) kinda way.

Web 1.0 was basically the ability to use HTML in create ways with a touch of Flash or JavaScript. Anyone could do HTML with a few hours in the bookstore, because code was simple. A lot of people become programmers and web designers without the slighest bit of university paper because, well, they could. Half-way down the road, XML came back into it’s own, but MySQL databases cut out a huge chunk of energy that would probably have gone to XML…if SQL hadn’t been A WHOLE LOT EASIER!

The concept of Web 2.0 continued this tradition, but added three components: rapid development by small “agile” teams, open source technology and altruistic customers. This cocktail kicked Web 1.0 up an entire notch, by creating feedback loops, noise and movement, linking superstructures and adding more than a touch of new *money*.

VC money came, even post DotCom Bust, because a few key companies were able to prove that cheap information in a shiny package could be support advertising revenue.

Once the ‘Net became the new TV, enough had been said and many (many, many) Web 2.0 companies were built to take advantage of public data. Google Map knockoffs, Craig’s List, Zillow, Google, Amazon, Digg, Technorati, … and other offerings made money because they could get data cheap or free, repackage it and “give” it back to the consumer. Essentially, the advertiser-driven model freed Web 2.0 producers from doing anything more than creating “cool.”

Amazon and others did one better by adding neat feedback loops and customer feelings of ownership over the product. This meant they got even MORE free data. While Digg, MySpace and FaceBook are having some growing pains, they flourished because of chatty post GenX customers who were happy enough to exchange personal data for the joy they got out of the portal-with-huge-fonts. I suspect there’s something Freudian in there, but ok.

What does search do but tell you where stuff is?? Yet Google? My goodness! The Google Guys made billions by getting lots of programmers with free time to help them create the coolest interface and tools for search of, well, card catalog data about the web. All for the price of an algorithm or two, bandwidth, hardware and some highly-talented programmers. Much cheaper than paying footsoldiers and typists.

So, what’s even remotely “cool” about the law??

Ok, I’m struggling here, because the law, by itself is the best cure for insomnia you can imagine. Yet, if Google Maps could turn latitude and longitude into an international obsession, there’s no doubt that the law can also be sexed up a great deal. Yet, from all indications, this is not what I would call Law 2.0, which is a fundamental change in the way law is dealt with on a popular front, but Web 2.0 plain and simple: repackaging free data for consumption by eyeballs which are then consumed by advertisers.

So, what gives with Legal Zoom?

Legal Zoom, co-founded by Robert Shapiro (remember OJ?, yeah, that guy), is actually a Law 2.0 site. In other words, it attempts to tackle fundamental issues of the law in a new way (well, sorta). So, then, why is it in trouble:

We have been in negotiations with LegalZoom for more than a year over
their theft of our copy written materials. They have admitted to the
violation, and have removed our materials from their site. However, they
also have been accused of practicing law without a license in Montana
and other states. Their practice seems to be to scour public sites that
provide forms and information for free, take them and modify them to a
small degree, then sell them for upwards of $500 to unsuspecting low
income people. In many cases the forms cannot even be used in the
litigant’s jurisdiction, but the company will not refund the fee. If
someone wants to discuss this with me (I chair Montana’s Commission on
Self-Represented Litigants) they are welcome to call or email me
directly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tammy A. Hinderman
Reference Librarian
State Law Library of Montana
215 N. Sanders St.
P.O. Box 203004
Helena, MT 59620
406-444-3636
mtlawlibrary@mt.gov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

—–Original Message—–
From: owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu [mailto:owner-law-lib@ucdavis.edu] On
Behalf Of Jacoby, Robert Andrew
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:44 PM
To: law-lib@ucdavis.edu
Subject: legal zoom?

A professor here has a question about legalzoom.com, which is a legal
documentation service. Specifically he is interested in their patent
services and wants to know if they are legitimate or not. Are there any
horror stories about the company?

http://www.legalzoom.com

I have done some googling about the company, but I am leery of websites
I don’t know giving glowing reviews or hit pieces.

Thanks,

Robert Jacoby
Reference/Electronic Services Librarian
LaValley Law Library
University of Toledo

That’s not the entire thread, but it’s enough. So, heres the problem: lawyers sell time and paper. That’s basically it.

So, if LegalZoom has followed the Web 2.0 model and taken public data, repackaged it and then sold it back to the consumer, how is that a copyright problem? Further, if legal briefs submitted to the court (and thus public data) can be “protected” by copyright, –what else can be?

At the end of the day, legal briefs are usually not original, and usually not very well written. If someone takes a brief, smartens it up, however, should the cleaner get a copyright in something they really didn’t write, just because the purpose wasn’t court submission but commercial sale?

At some point, it seems that copyright in a legal brief is ridiculous, but even 5 years ago, there was discussion about whether legal briefs can be copyrighted. Here’s just a snippet of the conversation:

Re: Copyrighting Legal Briefs
From: David Bryant (drb7949@concentric.net)
Date: 04/17/02

* Next message: Sylvia_A_Brown@wiwd.uscourts.gov: “RE: Article on Thomson Corp.’s Finances”
* Previous message: DAVID CLARK: “Results Re: Current Figure? Library Expenditures Per Attorney”
* In reply to: S. Matheson: “Re: Copyrighting Legal Briefs”
* Next in thread: Scott DeLeve: “Re: Copyrighting Legal Briefs”
* Reply: Scott DeLeve: “Re: Copyrighting Legal Briefs”
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Since the attorney is the author of an original work, and since many others
are scanning legal documents and selling reproductions as document service
providers for a fee, why should the attorney be precluded from copyright
protection against unauthorized reproduction? If the Library of Congress
can copyright the LC Classification tables, the Idaho Supreme Court their
opinions, the Maricopa County Clerk their court forms, why can’t attorneys
do the same for pleadings, including briefs? This does not preclude fair
use or recopying boiler plate pleadings. I have suggested this approach to
attorneys for the last three years, especially in light of the recent
NYTimes Supreme Court case (Tasimi?). The real issue is: who owns the law?
David R Bryant, former adjunct faculty and lecturer in Law Librarianship
Dominican University GSLIS Box 809 LaGrange, IL 60525-0809
drb7949@concentric.net 708-352-3039
—– Original Message —–
From: “S. Matheson”
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: Copyrighting Legal Briefs

I noticed this last week when someone here provided the link to the
Milberg
briefs… The story on Marketplace (from Minnesota Public Radio and PRI)
focused mainly on Milberg’s disenchantment with other class-action
litigators “scanning,” editing and filing briefs they had written.

A Boalt IP professor interviewed in the piece was dubious about the scope
of
protection offered legal briefs under the copyright law. There was also
mention about an attorney’s ethical obligations to make the best argument
possible on behalf of their clients.

The only things that William S. Lerach has registered copyright in are
CLE-type materials, no briefs, yet. (But of course, the Copyright Office
is
still digging out from under the September-induced mail backlog… so who
knows.) I know registration is not required to claim protection, but
challenging such a registration would be a good way to have the Register
of
Copyrights define the scope of protection afforded to legal briefs under
the
copyright law.

To view Milberg’s (interesting) copyright statement, visit
http://www.milberg.com/pdf/consolidated_complaint.pdf

Scott

[snip]

Here’s the thing: if lawyers are going to continue to use the web, they’re going to have to let go of the monopoly on legal information. We can’t rejoice at not having to pay for searchable legal opinions, while at the same time, decrying the availability of legal briefs on-line. There is a problem in moetizing the work of someone else, but I think it’s more of an ethical problem (not providing consumers with real assistance), more than a copyright issue.

Tome, the whole concept of Law 2.0 means that there has to be a significant shift in the way law is practiced, which also means a shift in the products and services from which lawyers make their living. I’m not sure that we have too many lawyers in this country, but we certainly have too many in some paces and far too few in others. If the Internet forces a rationalization of the legal profession, that’s probably a good thing.

Web 2.0’s fantasy island

Sure, the latest controversy involves the Barack Obama campaign:

The interests of Joe and Barack diverged, big time, and corporate MySpace was called in. Not to mediate, however, to take control, of Joe’s page on behalf of Barack.

as noted by ZDNet’s Donna Bogatin. Aside from the fact that any news is good news for political candidates, we have the problem that Web 2.0 users really believe that the content they add to networking sites is their own.

Folks who worked on the Wesley Clark campaign last election weren’t a bit surprised because we learned exactly what it means when the political machinery kicks in. That’s just the way politics works,–”grassroots” in the online world really means “starter kit.” Once you get the car running, you can be sure that the campaign will sub in another driver to make sure 1) that campaign election laws are followed and 2) that they are the ones to control the candidate’s image.

Here’s the spin put on it by the campaign’s Joe Rospar:

At that point, the profile had about 40,000 friends, and to our delight, Joe agreed to work with us. Indeed, he seemed relieved to have some help — he gave us the password, and we began to exchange content, work together, and continue growing this community from the ground-up.

[snip]

We knew Joe had a full-time job already, and, early on, we floated the idea of moving to Chicago to work for us full-time (potential staffers were moving to Chicago and join the team at that time, and there were openings).

[snip]

But Joe seemed to prefer to volunteer part-time from the outside with the campaign to continue building the community. He said he was honored to help out, and we were honored to work with him. We worked through the complications that arose: letting Joe know that he shouldn’t work on the site from work, educated him about the rules governing campaign promotion of official Senate material, etc. Joe was right with us, and things continued down the path towards making this unofficial community into an official space run with help from volunteers.

As we progressed, we began to work-up paperwork that would codify this arrangement — ensuring that the campaign would have full access (what if someone put up an obscene comment during the day while Joe was at work?), and assuming the liability burden (legally, ethically, and politically) for what happened on the site.
[snip]

In other words…Obama is in it to win it. Joe built a powerhouse we couldn’t ignore. We had it and him under control. We lost control. We took back control. Love Obama, hate spin.

It doesn’t make Obama a bad person, indeed, he’s definitely a top 2 candidate…the problem is that they need…oh, I dunno, someone like ….eh….ummmm…ok: Wesley Clark… to balance the ticket. Obama-Clark-Obama might work nicely, since we gotta get out of the current military mess while cleaning up the domestic mess-to-come. On the other hand an Obama-McCain_Obama ticket would be pretty interesting too! [sigh]

Anyway, this whole “open-source” misunderstanding really started with the implicit theology of giants Google and Amazon:

You give us your thoughts, aspirations, dreams and …content……and code….and we’ll give you an ultra cool service that’s as addictive as crack while we monetize your thoughts, aspirations, dreams and …content……and code.

Works for millions, so who’s to say it’s wrong? Heck, this blog is on WordPress’s website, even though I’m perfectly capable of running it on my own servers!

Terms of Service

I scouted out the ownership sections from the terms of service agreements of several prominent social networking sites. It turns out there is considerable diversity in the types of agreement provisions offered. Here are snippets of what I found (to read the entire policy follow the links):

Google

here:

9. Proprietary rights

9.1 You acknowledge and agree that Google (or Google’s licensors) own all legal right, title and interest in and to the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in the Services (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). You further acknowledge that the Services may contain information which is designated confidential by Google and that you shall not disclose such information without Google’s prior written consent.

Amazon

here

COPYRIGHT

All content included on this site, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of Amazon.com or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content on this site is the exclusive property of Amazon.com and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws. All software used on this site is the property of Amazon.com or its software suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws.

MySpace

here

6. Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.com.

1. MySpace.com does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, “Content”) that you post to the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain all ownership rights in such Content, and you continue to have the right to use your Content in any way you choose. By displaying or publishing (“posting”) any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services.

Facebook

here

Proprietary Rights in Site Content; Limited License

All content on the Web site, including but not limited to designs, text, graphics, pictures, video, information, software, music, sound and other files, and their selection and arrangement (the “Site Content”), are the proprietary property of the Company, its Users or its licensors with all rights reserved. No Site Content may be modified, copied, distributed, framed, reproduced, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, transmitted, or sold in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without the Company’s prior written permission, except that the foregoing does not apply to your own User Content (as defined below) that you legally post on the Site. Provided that you are eligible for use of the Site, you are granted a limited license to access and use the Site and to download or print a copy of any portion of the Site Content solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided that you keep all copyright or other proprietary notices intact. Except for your own User Content, you may not republish Site Content on any Internet, Intranet or Extranet site or incorporate the information in any other database or compilation, and any other use of the Site Content is strictly prohibited. Such license is subject to these Site Terms and does not include use of any data mining, robots or similar data gathering or extraction methods. Any use of the Site or the Site Content other than as specifically authorized herein, without the prior written permission of Company, is strictly prohibited and will terminate the license granted herein. Such unauthorized use may also violate applicable laws including without limitation copyright and trademark laws and applicable communications regulations and statutes. Unless explicitly stated herein, nothing in these Site Terms shall be construed as conferring any license to intellectual property rights, whether by estoppel, implication or otherwise. This license is revocable at any time without notice and with or without cause.

Friendster

here

Proprietary Rights in Content.

1. Rights in Content Posted by Friendster or Other Members. We own and retain all proprietary rights in the Website and the Service. The Website contains certain copyrighted material, including links and compilations of individual data, trademarks, and other proprietary information of Friendster, our Members, and our licensors. Except for any information which is In the public domain, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary materials or information without our express written consent in each case.
2. Rights in Content Posted by You. By publishing, displaying, or uploading (collectively, “Posting”) any text, links, photos, video, messages, or other data or information (collectively, “Content”) on or to the Website (including on or to your profile), you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Friendster an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute such Content and to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

Reddit

here

[ reddit.com was down just now]

Slashdot

here

6. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CONTENT POSTED ON THE OSTG SITES:

Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored on the OSTG Sites will be subject to licensing arrangements that may be approved by OSTG as applicable to such Content. For the OSTG Site SourceForge.net, use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net (“Source Code”) shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements as may be approved by SourceForge.net as applicable to such Source Code.

Huffit

here

3. This Service (including, without limitation, text, photographs, graphics, video and audio content) is protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries, and THP (subject to the rights of its licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) has rights therein. All individual articles, videos, content and other elements comprising this Service are also copyrighted works, and THP (subject to the rights of its licensors and licensees under applicable agreements, understandings and arrangements) has rights therein.

Digg

here

2. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE

Subject to full compliance with the Terms of Use, Digg may offer to provide certain services and content, as described more fully on the Site, (“Services”). Services shall include, but not be limited to, any service and content Digg performs for you, as well as the offering of any materials displayed or performed on the Site (including, but not limited to text, user comments, messages, information, data, graphics, news articles, photographs, images, illustrations, software, audio clips and video clips, also known as the “Content”) on the Site. Digg may change, suspend or discontinue the Services including any Content for any reason, at any time, including the availability of any feature or content. Digg may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Services without notice or liability.

The bottom line is most services make money from your input on the one hand [you build the site for them], and your eyeballs [you provide their advertisers with eyeballs], and in return, they give you something to do on a rainy afternoon.

There’s only one way to deal with this from the users side,–either by move your content-contracting volunteer work to a paid provider or build a clone that you yourself control.

From the MySpace terms of use, there’s nothing to stop anyone from taking the ball and going home. Just don’t buy into the whole “you own it” malarkey. You don’t. They do.

Grab the Tail, Get the Mouse, but Leave Digg Alone

Following a story on Today @ PC, I found this troubling and troubled admission by Kevin Rose:

We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.

But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.

This firestorm of legal activity is the result of Digg having taken down postings that contained code which allowed circumvention of restrictions built into HD-DVD products. In other words, by reading Digg, a ( highly tech-savvy ) consumer could figure out how to add value to her DVD components by enabling it to play multiple DVD formats. Cf. Today @ PC.

Ok, so where is the argument that manufacturers have already factored consumer modification into the original price? Does it not matter under the Act whether or not Digg, by its very existence, is destined to foment activity the Act seeks to prevent? Is every single posting violative of the ACt, or is there not an embeeded political protest that transcends the issue of DVD infringement?

If the outcome is the same (deep-sixing Digg), then the slippery slope to killing Web 2.0 and its progeny is very slippery indeed:

“It is our understanding that you are providing to the public the above-identified tools and services at the above referenced URL,” reads one letter sent by AACS LA’s attorneys to a representative of Google, “and are thereby providing and offering to the public a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection measures afforded by AACS (hereafter, the “circumvention offering”). Doing so constitutes a violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” Source

These provisions are , presumably, under Section 1201, which states:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Given the promotion of mods from the earliest days of Tech TV (now G4), it shouldn’t come as any surprise that Rose’s readers continue to re-engineer every mousetrap they can get their hands on.

Perhaps manufacturers ought to listen to this blaring public service announcement from ( highly tech-savvy ) consumers that blocked DVD players do not represent value for money.

It used to be that one of the key benefits of products from toasters to the Model-T was that you could fix it yourself without a 500-page manual. I recall when buying a dress or skirt was also a commitment to a session on the chair while Mom reworked the hem, pinched the waistband or let out the sleeves.

Forcing mod enthusiasts to go underground will only mean that once a brainiac cracks a code, all he has to do is embed the code in a digital copy of Our Town.

So, even though big business makes the world go around and greed continues to be good, the world is flat, and a new profit model seems in order.

Why not create and license a hardware-based API? Car companies do it, –indeed most mechanics have to undergo all sorts of certification and buy all sorts of fancy…computers…before they have a clue as to how to fix modern cars pursuant to warranty.

So, here’s an off-the-cuff suggestion: let people use hardware as they see fit, but give them the option of licensing an extended warranty to cover the official modification.

That would grab not just the long-tail, but the mouse itself.

Shweeeet! My new theme!

Ok, so much for waiting until later. I found this tres cool template on the theme viewer and had to have it.

Ok, so I’ll probably change the colors (I mean gray is so…Seattle) to something chirpier, but it’ll do for now!

Thanks for the cool thing, Sadish Balasubramanian!!