techmediaweb

As a young CEO of a growing company, I find that the most valuable insight I’m gaining these days has been from other CEOs. Certainly this realization isn’t revolutionary – YPO, EO, Mindshare and a host of other organizations are set up just for this kind of knowledge exchange.

But who has time for that? This is a social media world. We’re live in 140-character sound bites. So I decided to ping my favorite CEOs via Twitter to see what kind of wisdom they could drop on me. Here’s the great advice they shared.

Daniel Ek, CEO, Spotify

Figure out what the top five most important stuff is, focus relentlessly on that and keep iterating. Less is more.

Dennis Crowley, CEO, FourSquare

Don’t let people tell you your ideas won’t work. If you have a hunch that something will work, go build it. Ignore the haters.

Sarah Prevette, Founder, Sprouter

Just do it. Get it out there, absorb the feedback, adjust accordingly, hustle like hell, persevere and never lose your swagger.

Sarah Lacy, CEO, PandoDaily

Follow your gut. it may be wrong, but you won’t regret it if you fail. You’ll regret it if you ignore your gut and fail.

Craig Newmark, Founder, Craigslist

Treat people like you want to be treated. Apply to customer service.

Gary Vaynerchuk, CEO, VaynerMedia

Do work for your customers, not for press or VCs. The end user is what matters long term.

Matt Mullenweg, CEO, Automattic

Only reinvent the wheels you need to get rolling.

Jason Goldberg, CEO, Fab.com

Pick one thing and do that one thing — and only that one thing — better than anyone else ever could.

 Alexis Ohanian, CEO, Reddit

Make something people want. Then give more damns than anyone else about it and you’ll make something they love.

Chris Brogan, President, Human Business Works

Buy @ericries’s book. Beyond that? Build a platform. This is the big year.

Matt Howard, CEO, ZoomSafer

Startup wisdom: The number one job of a CEO is to not run out of money.

Brian Wong, CEO, Kiip

Always be learning from others. Whenever you meet someone, you don’t want something from them, you want to learn from them.

Seth Priebatsch, Chief Ninja, SCVNGR and LevelUp

Something my dad taught me: Ask forgiveness, not permission!

Hooman Radfar, Founder, Clearspring

Give away the wins, own the loses. Your job is to curate greatness.

Alexa Hirschfeld, CEO, Paperless Post

Users and employees are key predictive indicators of a company’s success; press and investors generally months behind.

Got some other great wisdom for your fellow CEOs? Leave me a comment!

Peter Corbett (@corbett3000) is the CEO of the creative agency iStrategyLabs, and is the founding organizer of DC Tech Meetup.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Search Engine People Blog.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro: Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Defining work in the digital age: an analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Forecast: the future of the digital music industry
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content

---

There is a lot of talk about data, 3D printing, innovation, design and user interaction and curation. So this week’s theme is a collection of writing that questions conventional wisdom about these aforementioned themes. Most of them are long — so better get a cup of tea now.

• Data trumps opinion, especially when it comes to design, argues Adapative Path’s Brandon Schauer. He outlines four examples in his post.
• The myth of the new brand new innovation myth: Is that headline giving you a headache? If you look beyond it, the article is a great treatise on innovation, the individual and the team dynamic.
• There is a lot of optimism and hype around 3D printing these days. Christopher Mims over on Technology Review magazine isn’t buying it. He thinks it will go the way of virtual reality.
• After a long break, Rohit Bhargava, one of my favorite writers on marketing, returns with the four principles of delusional economies.
• I am neither an engineer or a designer. However, I do know a great primer when I read one. This is a great design primer for engineers from Michael Loop.
• 7 ways to organize your home office in 2012: Given how cluttered my home office gets, I found this list from Herman Miller’s Cerentha Harris quite helpful.
• As you all know, I am obsessed with Pinterest these days. But here is a fresh and wonderful take from a non-techie, who describes the social aesthetic behind the fast-growing social sharing service.

PS: By the way, in addition to the Om Says newsletter, you can stay in touch with me via Twitter (@Om) or on Facebook (http://facebook.com/ommalik).

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro: Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Forecast: the future of the digital music industry
• Q4 Wrap-up: SOPA and the future of digital content
• NewNet Q4: Platform mania and social commerce shakeout

---

One of the more important points in understanding some of the fights over the ridiculousness of today's copyright and patent laws is to recognize how knowledge (information) is a natural resource. It is the input that makes other great things. Economist Paul Romer's famous research really showed how knowledge and information as a resource is what creates economic growth. Once you recognize that fact, you begin to run into problems when you think about locking up that natural resource. Think of other natural resources. Do we think the world is better off if there's a greater supply of each of those? An abundance? If we have an abundance of wheat, that's a good thing. If we have an abundance of energy, that's a good thing. There may be side effects of such abundances, but the overall abundance is something worth cherishing. The problem, however, comes when you have a new abundance where once there was scarcity. And that's because anywhere there's a scarcity, someone has built a business model based on that very scarcity. But that is a business model issue. Years ago, most economies rejected the idea of mercantilism, where governments would purposely build up monopolies and artificial scarcities, because of the realization that, in the long run, everyone was better off with a competitive market. The guy who had the sugar monopoly may have hated it -- but everyone else was much, much better off. And, so, we go back to knowledge and information. Unlike most other resources, knowledge is not just abundant... it is infinite. As Thomas Jefferson once famously wrote:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

And yet... we still default to thinking that this amazing resource should be locked up. Because it's often easier to see how the guy who owns the sugar monopoly benefits, than to think through the more complicated market in which there are competing sugar providers, each trying to offer a better product, under which consumers benefit at a massive scale, markets grow and opportunity blossoms. It's easier to just focus on the fact that it makes life more difficult for the one monopolist. And often, it seems that we run into this same issue when it comes to intellectual property law. Brent Ahsley recently wrote an interesting post, in which he talks about how something he created way back in 2002, one of the first DHTML-based embeddable chat windows -- has become a mainstream piece of technology, but one over which Ahsley has no control, nor profits from. But, unlike the typical analysis, Ahsley realizes that the world is much better off this way:

I occasionally find myself talking with someone about facebook chat or google chat and I'll say "I sorta invented that" and point them to my Feb 2002 blog entry where I built and released to the wild what was one of the earliest embeddable DHTML chat windows, using my also free and open what-was-not-yet-called-Ajax library I released in 2000, about 5 years before many people came along and pushed the state of the art much further down the road. Invariably I am told that I should be rich and that all those sites and people "stole" my ideas. I disagree and say that these were all perfectly obvious inventions to me and all the others who came after me and that it was my duty to the net to feed my work back into it such that folks could stand on my shoulders as I had stood on those of others. That is how the net works – or at least it used to. It still does in open development circles but the content and patent industries are fighting hard to brainwash everyone that knowledge is inherently owned.

And this, as Ahsley recognizes, is a problem. The world of monopolists is focused on protecting the monopoly. But if Ashley, for example, had patented aspects of his AJAX library, or his embeddable chat, would the world be a better place? It's likely that such chat features would not be as common. It's likely that such chat offerings (which are now everywhere) would not be as powerful or as useful. It's likely that the world would be a worse place. Ahsley, personally, might be a little wealthier -- perhaps someone would pay him to license the functionality, or perhaps he'd successfully sue someone. But the world would be more limited and there would be less to go on. This, then, is the problem that many of us face in looking at and trying to understand the nature of economics, growth, innovation and progress when looking at the world of monopoly protections. It's easy to see the sugar monopolist, and see how taking down those monopolies might make his job harder (even if it creates a big market with more opportunity to make more money). But to recognize that bigger picture, as Ashley does, is difficult. Ashley tries to put it all in perspective:

Anything that is knowable is a part of the universe of truth that has no owner and no bounds. The invention or discovery of anything results in the exposure of one or more hitherto undocumented universal truths to the collected human record. The true and original purpose of copyright and patents is to create a temporary legal fiction which acts in many respects like ownership, conferring upon an individual person rights to control the use and dissemination of morsels of universal truth which they had the luck and/or tenacity to first identify, so they can be recompensed for their contribution to the universe’s growing stockpile of exposed truth for the benefit of all humanity. The legal expansion to include corporate personhood and subsequent term extensions tending towards permanence of the legal assignment of ownership equivalence amounts to the expropriation and destruction of large parts of humanity’s natural knowledge resources. It’s not too much different from bulldozing the rainforest.

At some point, it needs to be recognized that the purpose of these laws has been twisted and twisted and twisted to the point that they are broken. They're not acting as a reward for those who discover key elements of knowledge in exchange for sharing them. They've become tolls in and of themselves for the sole purpose of enriching the monopolist. And that takes us right back to mercantilism. If we were able to reject industrial mercantilism as the wrong economic approach 250 years or so ago, at some point we're going to reach the age where we can reject intellectual mercantilism as well. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

A quick-witted policeman who is an Apple aficionado proved more than a match for a man who fled after taking a woman’s iPhone in Manhattan on Thursday.

Back in 2010, we wrote about an attempt to sue the website TheDirty.com for libel... in which the lawyer for the site accidentally sued a different site, called TheDirt.com. This resulted in some hilarity with a bogus default judgment and plenty of confusion. We joked how, given the similarities in the names of those sites to Techdirt, perhaps we should be happy that we weren't sued as well. However, once all the mistakes were realized, the case did shift to actually suing TheDirty.com's owner. TheDirty is (1) not safe for work and (2) not a particularly nice site. It mostly involves user submissions of pictures of women, along with generally mean commentary from the user -- and then maybe a short comment from the site's owner. It is a mean site, and the site's owner and readers seem to embrace that, even if it's exceptionally petty. The specific lawsuit involved a Bengals cheerleader/school teacher, who wasn't happy with the pictures of her posted to the website... along with the comments made about her (such as suggesting she had slept with the entire football team.) As we noted at the time, if this content is user generated -- it's a clear situation where the case should be dismissed over Section 230's safe harbors (which put the liability on the actual content creator, rather than the middlemen third parties). In this case, the claims that might reach the level of defamation clearly came from the user, not the site owner. Previous rulings in other districts have even made it clear that sites that merely pass along content created by someone else -- even if it involves a moderator "choosing" what gets displayed -- does not change the basic protections. So this case should have been a slam dunk. Instead... it appears that the judge has gone in the other direction, creating really convoluted arguments to claim that Section 230 does not apply. As Eric Goldman explains, there are serious problems with this ruling:

The court's discussion is short, yet it's surprisingly scattered. Pages 8-10 run through a gamut of gripes about thedirty's practices and statements, but the judge doesn't articulate the relevance of these facts (other than providing evidence of the judge's animus towards thedirty). Because the judge does a poor job connecting the facts to his adopted legal standard, we aren't sure exactly what thedirty did to foreclose the 230 immunity

The ruling, which is attached below really is that bizarre. The judge twists and turns himself into contortions to try to come up with a reason to say that TheDirty.com is liable for comments made on the site. The simplest explanation, as Eric noted, is that the judge just didn't like the kind of site that TheDirty.com is (and from a quick glance, remains). The key to the judge's ruling is trying to apply the infamous Roomates.com case. The problem, however, is that the case doesn't fit well. Roommates.com lost not because the site encouraged some actions against the law, but because its menu choices were a part of the content creation, and those menu choices, themselves, directly violated the Fair Housing Act. It's a huge stretch to go from there to claiming that a site where mean things are celebrated is no longer protected via Section 230's safe harbors. But that's what the judge did. And, in part, it gets really scary for me, personally, because the judge declares -- multiple times -- that the use of the word "dirt" in a domain name means that you are encouraging defamation:

First, the name of the site in and of itself encourages the posting only of “dirt,” that is material which is potentially defamatory or an invasion of the subject’s privacy.

Of course, there's absolutely nothing in Section 230 that suggests that if a judge doesn't like your name -- or falsely assumes that any website with the word "dirt" in the name is up to no good -- he can ignore Section 230's important protections. Like Eric suggested, it would be good if there's an appeal here, because it seems to go against pretty much any other Section 230 rulings. Not liking a site is simply not a reason to ignore those important safe harbors... And, just to summarize, here are the basics. The site, TheDirty.com posted a user submission, with a one-sentence comment on it. That submission included a cheerleader/teacher, who didn't like her photos being widely available. Somewhere along the way the legal shenanigans began. Remember, the contents of the post itself may be defamatory -- but that, alone, should not make the site liable. It could very well make the original submitter liable, but the cheerleader doesn't seem to want to go that route of actually suing those who did the bad thing. So, instead, the site now faces a lot of liability... because a judge thinks that having "dirt" in your domain name must mean that you're seeking out something bad. For reasons beyond just the standard defenses of Section 230, this is pretty bizarre and slightly terrifying. I certainly don't encourage the submission of defamatory information. But because I have "dirt" in my domain name, does that mean I should be worried too? Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Twitter’s announcement that it would agree to block certain messages in countries where they were deemed illegal prompted outcry, argument and even calls for a boycott.

We've had plenty of stories about the ridiculousness of security theater at airports, but it's been spreading elsewhere as well. Last week, I was in Washington DC from Monday through Thursday, for a few things (mostly related to the SOPA/PIPA debate). On Thursday morning, I took part in a press briefing about the SOPA/PIPA fight (this was before it had been shelved, but after the web blackouts) at the US Capitol. I was actually heading to the airport soon after, so I had checked out of my hotel, and had put the metal water canteen that I use in my bag. It was empty, knowing that I'd have to go through airport security a little later. However, at security to get into the Capitol, I was told I could not bring the canteen in, even though it was empty. I asked if there was any reason for this. I was told I just couldn't bring it in. I asked if there was any place I could "leave" it, and I was told to go outside and there were dumpsters to the right. I even asked if someone could hold it for me, since it would just be an hour or so. No luck. Dumpsters, outside to the right. The canteen isn't anything special, but I do like it. According to the price tag still on the bottom, it cost $11 when my wife bought it for me. I can buy another canteen, but really, there's a bit of a principle thing to all of this. If the canteen itself is dangerous, then, putting it in a dumpster outside isn't going to change that. I went outside and there were some police there, so I asked them if there was anything I could do. They also pointed me to the dumpsters. I asked if I might be able to get it back, and they said, "if you don't mind climbing in... and if the garbage isn't picked up by then." And so, an hour and a half later, after the press briefing was done, I (wearing a suit), climbed into the dumpster at the Capitol to pick up my water canteen, so I could take it with me back home. Again, it certainly wouldn't have been the end of the world if I'd lost it. But I'm at a loss as to what this little bit of security theater accomplished. Either the canteen is dangerous, or it's not. If it's dangerous, I shouldn't be able to leave it right next to the Capitol... and I shouldn't then be able to go retrieve it. If it's not dangerous (and, um, it's not), then the whole thing is a complete joke. Oh, and I shouldn't forget the other punchline: I saw at least two people in the press briefing with their own (brought from home) water canteens. Somehow, none of this makes me feel any safer. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

For big companies like Google, Salesforce and Microsoft, being active in charitable causes is practically a must-do. Companies of this size often have entire teams of employees focused on philanthropic initiatives and organizing company-wide volunteering events. But at smaller companies that don’t have the same infrastructure in place, employees often don’t have the same opportunities to give back, on-the-job.

That’s where a new software platform built by Los Angeles-based startup Causecastcomes in. This week Causecast debuted its Employee Impact Platform, a web-based program that connects companies and their employees with non-profits and charitable causes. With Causecast, employers can select a group of causes to which they’ll provide matching donations to whatever employees give. The platform can also be used to organize company-wide volunteering events. Non-profits plug into Causecast for free, and companies are generally charged a flat rate of around $1 per user per month.

Causecast founder Ryan Scott walked me through a demo of the new platform. To me, the best part to me is how easy Causecast makes it to spend extra-curricular time with your co-workers doing something other than going out for happy hour drinks. Non-profits of course will benefit from more companies donating time and money to their causes — but according to Scott, companies benefit a lot as well. He put it like this:

“Employees who aren’t engaged with their jobs aren’t as productive. And it sounds counter-intuitive, but you often have to leave the office to become more engaged with your work, and with your co-workers. Volunteering is a really great way to get everyone together outside of the office to do something bigger than themselves.”

Causecast, which was founded in 2007, currently has 30 employees. Thus far, Causecast has been self-funded by Scott, who first became known in the late 1990s for co-founding NetCreations, where he created and patented the “double opt-in” process that propelled the email marketing industry. After selling NetCreations in an all-cash deal in 2001, Scott said, he decided to find a way to merge his desire to do some good in the world while still staying active in business.

When Causecast first launched, it was an online platform to let all people contribute to charitable causes touted by celebrities and brands. The shift into the enterprise space is a smart one, as small businesses are becoming increasingly important parts of the employment landscape and the general public is calling more and more for corporations to behave responsibly. With Causecast, small businesses can compete with larger, more established companies when it comes to offering their employees ways to give back. It’ll be interesting to see how the new iteration of Causecast takes off in the months ahead.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro: Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• NewNet 2012: companies and technologies set to disrupt
• The Case for Increased M&A in 2011: Actions and Outlooks
• 2012: Data, spectrum and the race to LTE

---

If you're not smiling in your Facebook photo, your life is probably going to suck in 4 years time.

Reseachers J. Patrick Seder and Shigehiro Oishi at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville discovered that smile intensity from a single Facebook profile photo in the first semester of college predicted self-reported life satisfaction 3.5 years later, at the time of college graduation.

This type of study isn't actually unique to Facebook, however. A 2011 study by Harker and Keltner showed that female students smiling in their college graduation yearbook photos from 1958 and 1960 were reportedly happier 30 years later. A similar study by Abel and Kruger (2010) found that professional baseball players who smiled more intensely in archival photos lived seven years longer than those who didn't smile much.

Sponsor

Why does intensity of smiling in a photo predict well-being later in life? Smile intensity is associated with life satisfaction and smiling. But what about extraversion? This is another, third variable that the researchers considered.

The researchers also considered that people who smile more in their public Facebook photos tend to have better social relationships. Past research shows that people who smile in photos are usually warm and friendly, and they tend to have an easier time in social relationships. As such, smiling intensity in photos correlates with a higher life satisfaction through positive social relationships.

Does extraversion play into the longitudinal association between smile intensity and life satisfaction? Smile intensity did not significantly correlate with self-reported extraversion. The researchers did not find evidence for extraversion-as-third-variable account of life satisfaction. They did find that first-semester social relationships satisfaction was an important link between smile intensity and future self-reported life satisfaction.

Interestingly, they did not find evidence that extraversion was responsible for association between smile intensity in photos and future life satisfaction. So just because someone is extraverted on Facebook or in life doesn't mean they're satisfied - it just means that they're extraverted.

One caveat to the study: Researchers worked with students who were college freshmen in the fall 2005, and used Facebook when it became available to most colleges. In September 2006, Facebook became available outside of the academy. The first study worked with 92 participants (35 male), which is a rather small sample size. All Study 1 participants were early adopters of Facebook.

Discuss

There are a lot of food options out there, and fast food is certainly one of the more popular choices for people on the go. Not surprisingly, though, fast food establishments usually don't have the best reputation for healthy dining, but some of them are trying to change their image. Here are just a few stories on fast food news.

• Burger King is testing out a home delivery service for its food in the DC area. Best sentence in the coverage: "There are some real food-quality issues here," says Ron Paul, president of research firm Technomic. [url]
• McDonald's tried a social marketing campaign on Twitter, asking for customers to tell some of their #McDStories. Oops. They didn't expect the #McSnideRemarks -- which is par for the course on the internet. [url]
• Yum! Brands restaurants (eg. Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut...) in Kentucky lobbied to accept food stamps -- but some people don't think that's a good idea. Others argue that it's a step up from getting food from a gas station. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

U.S. Patent # 6,591,353, "Protocol for Communication with Dynamic Memory," tends to refer to a "memory device." The innovation with respect to this device appeared to be the introduction of a synchronous clock. That way, time-multiplexed transfers could take place in a regulated fashion.

But as USPTO documents published today show, the appeals judges found that two existing patents cited by Nvidia qualify as prior art, and moreover, that the teachings demonstrated by those older patents would be inspiration enough for a skilled artisan to apply the teachings to improving synchronous memory the way Nvidia appears to have done.

Sponsor

In their decision, the judges refer to the patent concepts by the names of their inventors - "Hayes" for the one under contention, "Bennett" for the prior art. Citing directly from the decision:

The Examiner agrees that Hayes discloses a memory device and anticipates claim 1, but maintains that including all the RAM control logic into each Hayes DRAM chip would not have been obvious... But dependent claim 2 recites sampling data synchronously and does not require all the RAM control logic to be integrated into each chip. NVIDIA points out that the term "memory device" in these claims is not limited to a single chip, but even if they are, NVIDIA persuasively shows the obviousness of creating a single chip... The claim 2 memory device, whether as a chip or a broader device, requires strobe functionality which Hayes teaches and synchronization which Bennett teaches according to this record. As NVIDIA persuasively explains, Hayes describes time-multiplexed clock data transfers between a master and slave during different clock cycles, and Bennett teaches benefits to providing a synchronized interface in a memory device using an external clock. The Examiner does not appear to disagree with these findings... NVIDIA also relies on Mr. Parris [an expert witness] who testifies that ordinarily skilled artisans were shifting from asynchronous to synchronous operations to increase speed... Based on this record, NVIDIA shows that it would have been obvious in view of Bennett to implement certain control logic, including a synchronous logic interface, into the memory device of Hayes.

This week's loss is the latest in a string of bad luck for Rambus, that comes on the heels of what had been an upward trend for a company whose reputation was pretty much created in the courtroom. The uptick began four years ago, when a Federal Trade Commission ruling was overturned. That ruling had found Rambus was withholding critical implementation plans for its memory standards from the JEDEC standards agency, and had sent a signal to the industry that Rambus was unfairly trying to manipulate standards to its own advantage. The overturning of that ruling was the beginning of what had been a glorious resurrection of Rambus' respect.

But perhaps buoyed too much by the outcome, Rambus then tried to hold the same manufacturers that first accused it of unfair standards manipulation - Hynix Semiconductor and Micron technologies - responsible for essentially the same conduct. The court didn't buy that argument either, ruling in favor of Hynix and Micron two months ago.

Suddenly, Rambus had resumed its former public image of pursuing greater revenues through litigation. With only three of six patents remaining valid in its case against Nvidia and five others, Rambus may not be able to hold on to even that. Today, Rambus' stock price hit what memory engineers would call a "low state," losing another 13% in NASDAQ trading today after already having lost over half its value last November in the wake of the Hynix/Micron decision.

Discuss

We just wrote about Nimblebit's response to Zynga upon discovering Zynga's game that looks a lot like a Nimblebit game. In that post, we noted that even Nimblebit's game was hardly the first such game out there, and now (as pointed out in our comments), someone decided to take the format of Nimblebit's letter, and redo it as a letter to Nimblebit about the other games that inspired Nimblebit's game. The tone is a little snarky -- and to be honest, I never got the feeling from the original that Nimblebit was claiming that it, too, wasn't inspired by others. Still, this really does show the nature of creativity and copying these days. All of these games can (and do) happily co-exist in the marketplace, where they can compete with each other to improve and provide a better consumer experience. And that seems like a good thing. On top of that, for those who are worried about another company copying them, it helps to remember that then you can copy their best ideas right back.... and improve on them. It's through this sort of process that innovation rates increase... Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

So, we've shot down SOPA and PIPA. Congratulations Internets for a job well done. Mission accomplished, right? Not so much. While that's two bad pieces of legislation pushed back, there's much more where that came from. Leaving aside existing nastiness like the DMCA, we also have the even nastier Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (PDF). How bad is it? Bad enough that the European Parliament's rapporteur for ACTA (Kader Arif) resigned over it today (January 27, 2012). Unfortunately for those of us in the United States, President Obama has already ratified ACTA on behalf of the United States.

Sponsor

If you haven't heard much about ACTA, don't be surprised. You see, you really weren't supposed to hear anything about ACTA until well after it was ratified and far too late for the rabble to do anything about it. That's what, in large part, led to Arif's resignation.

As Wayne Rash wrote earlier this week, "ACTA is, in effect, a treaty, negotiated in secret by the U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk... Until recently, the actual text of ACTA was so secret that only a few lawyers outside of the White House and the USTR offices had actually seen it. And those people were required to sign non-disclosure agreements."

What ACTA Is

The goal of ACTA, says the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is "to create a new standard of intellectual property enforcement above the current internationally-agreed standards in the TRIPs Agreement and increased international cooperation including sharing of information between signatory countries' law enforcement agencies."

The EFF backgrounder also provides some insight to ACTA. While President Obama is carrying the torch for ACTA right now, the treaty goes back to October 2007 (or farther) when the U.S., Japan, Switzerland and the European Community said they'd be working on a new intellectual property enforcement treaty.

ACTA isn't the only area where (as the EFF puts it) "copyright industry rightsholder groups have sought stronger powers to enforce their intellectual property rights... to preserve their business models." But it is getting closer to reality.

Note that our own Scott Fulton observes that some of the protests against ACTA object to provisions that have been removed from the treaty. What this doesn't note is that many other objectionable provisions remain. Fulton also says "you can't be arrested for an ACTA violation." This is true, but only half the story. People can and will be arrested for violations of laws that result from nations complying with the treaty.

The word is that ACTA probably doesn't change U.S. law. Probably? Nobody's entirely sure. But as Techdirt calls out "it certainly does function to lock in US law, in a rapidly changing area of law, where specifics are far from settled." It also, of course, serves to dictate compliance in other countries.

Why ACTA Is Unacceptable

• ACTA was negotiated in secret – for me, this is reason enough to oppose any legislation or regulation. I don't care if it's the "Hugs for Puppies and Kittens Act," if people aren't given an opportunity to engage with their lawmakers about a law, it shouldn't be enacted.
• Ridiculous damages – ACTA specifies "presumptions for determining damages" that basically assume that all of the infringed goods had sold. To put it another way, ACTA takes the position that if a user uploads a song to a file-sharing network, damages should be calculated as if the recipients would have paid for the work in question. This is ridiculous, as has been explained any number of places. Many people who download illicit copies would simply never have purchased the work in question had it not been available for free.
• It may be unconstitutional – The Obama administration is claiming that ACTA not a treaty, but an "executive agreement" and thus not subject to legislative approval. As Rash notes in his eWeek piece, Congress does not agree.
• It's over-broad – TK It's worth noting that not all of ACTA is necessarily bad. Some of the agreement is targeted at countering counterfeit goods that may be actively harmful, like counterfeit prescription drugs. But ACTA goes well beyond single areas of intellectual property and essentially tries to bear-hug everything IP-related. Not good.
• The ACTA committee is not accountable – ACTA creates a body outside of national and even international bodies, called the "ACTA Committee." (At least the name is honest.) The committee would not be accountable to the people governed by the agreement. Folks in the United States can vote out Lamar Smith and others who endorsed SOPA/PIPA, but we would have no real influence on the ACTA Committee.
• Low threshhold for violations – as the European Digital Rights group points out (PDF), ACTA's unclear wording would make it very easy for unintentional copyright infringement to rise to the level of a criminal act.
• No fair use provisions – As this opinion on ACTA by Eddan Katz and Gwen Hinze notes, ACTA would "export one half of the complex U.S. legal regime" but "without accompanying exceptions and limitations." In short, ACTA would not include fair use provisions and such that we expect in the U.S.
• Criminalizes what used to be a civil offense – An opinion prepared by Douwe Korff and Ian Brown notes, "ordinary companies and individuals could be criminalised for innocent activities or trivial breaches of copyright, or for technical breaches that serve a wider, overriding public interest (as in whistleblowing), without an appropriate defence." The EFF says "If the real intent behind introducing expanded criminal sanctions is to address infringement on the Internet, this provision is not likely to do so, but is likely to cause significant collateral harm to consumers."
• Locks In DMCA-Like Provisions – As the EFF notes (PDF) in its submission to the USTR, ACTA would "lock in" some of the controversial aspects of the DMCA that require legal enforcement against circumventing copy protection, etc. In other words, don't get too set on the idea of jailbreaking that iPhone.
• ACTA could be used against legitimate medications – As I noted earlier, looking to crack down on counterfeit drugs is good. Going after legitimate "grey market" drugs, that's another story. Yet as techdirt notes "there are very reasonable concerns that ACTA will be used to crack down, not on actual counterfeit medicines, but on "grey market" drugs – generic, but legal, copies of medicines. Some European nations, for example, already have a history of seizing shipments of perfectly legal generic drugs in passage to somewhere else."

That's 10, but I'm sure there are more. As I wrote on January 18th sending SOPA/PIPA to the legislative trashbin for the year is great, but not enough. SOPA/PIPA are not the only laws that threaten the free and open Internet. There's plenty of bad policy to go around at the state, national, and international levels. One round of annoyed phone calls to Congress is not going to do the trick. Even if it's too late to stop ACTA, there's even worse coming.

Discuss

Si en alguna ocasión os habéis propuesto aprender Ruby, pero no habéis encontrado el tiempo o las ganas de empezar con ello todavía, aquí en Genbeta os lo vamos a poner muy fácil presentando Bloc. En dicha web dispondremos de todo lo necesario para dar los primeros pasos con este lenguaje de programación orientado a objetos.

"Connect it to Facebook, viral spread, boom, boom." I have no idea what that means but I do know that for some reason, I'm still not tired of the Sh*t [fill in the blank] Says meme. This video is for anyone who's spent more than five minutes reading Techcrunch, knows what Y Combinator is and has faced the (sometimes) irrational exuberance of a tech entrepreneur. "Overheard: Time to pivot."

Sponsor

Discuss

On its face, matching iPad textbooks with college students seems almost perfect. But Apple's plans for its new iBookstore, from the way it's structured book purchases to its development strategy for multimedia e-books, doesn't seem like it's well-suited for the college textbook market at all ? if it even has that target in mind.

The sun is waking up. After several quiet years, it bombarded the Earth with a one-two punch of solar storms this week, which generated consecutive nights of spectacular auroras.

Según un estudio realizado por los sociólogos Nicholas Borde y Hui-Tzu Grace Chou en la Universidad Utah Valley, existe un estrecho vínculo entre la disposición de los usuarios de Facebook con respecto a su vida y el total de tiempo invertido en esta red social. Así lo arrojaron los resultados obtenidos de una encuesta a 425 estudiantes, a los que se les pidió que identificaran con valores positivos o negativos a frases como "Muchos de mis amigos tienen una vida mejor que yo", o "La vida es justa", además de tomar en cuenta aspectos como el tiempo dedicado a revisar Facebook, número de amigos -con cuántos de ellos se conocen en persona-, y establecer categorías por sexo, estado civil, raza y creencias religiosas.

Internet scorn for Twitter's announcement that it would censor tweets was swift and unforgiving. But even free-speech and other experts were divided on the service's move that it might censor tweets if required by law in "countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression."