March 2007

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2007.

Law blogs @ LSE

Two useful new blogs from the LSE School of Law:

Virtual Law@LSE aims to keep you up to date with developments in information and communications technology law from a UK perspective.

MediaPaL@LSE provides comment and sources on media policy and law.

Really simple?

Thanks to lo-fi librarian for discovering Parliament’s secret RSS feeds. But, as she points out, subscribing to these is far from simple:

1) Nowhere are the feeds advertised. You first need to find a page that offers the option to “Subscribe to Email Alerts for this page”, eg Public Bills before Parliament.

2) On the sign up page, check the updates to which you wish to subscribe.

3) I can’t recall if this lands you on your User Profile page. If not, once you start receiving emails (and they will come thick and fast), access your User Profile Page from the link in the email and click the orange feed icon to access your personalised feed.

4) Assuming you don’t want your email inbox clogged up, at the bottom of the User Profile page click the option “Do not send updates by e-mail. I want to receive updates only through my personalized RSS feed” and save.

You are now the proud subscriber to a personalised UK Parliament RSS feed.

I suspect I’m not alone in thinking this a daft way to go about things. How about, instead, they advertise their feeds, offering a feed for each of the updates and enabling “auto-discovery” of the feeds on the appropriate pages. Then users could subscribe to whichever feeds they choose in the manner to which they are accustomed without all that faffing about.

A further disappointment is that the feed items include the update information only in the body of the feed; the titles and links are to the (updated) page on the Parliament site; so all headlines for each type of alert have the same uninformative title and link to the same page; you do need to read the full feed content to benefit.

Update: Just discovered you can access the full, unfiltered feed without signing up: here it is . But how useful is this?

Mind your Rs

This on Slaw yesterday about Simon Fodden’s day in the Canadian Supreme Court got me thinking:

Justice Charon was using a laptop, the only one of the nine to do so (at least so far as I could see). It would be interesting to discover whether she was able to follow the references to the facta in this way, or whether she had her own set of notes to be consulted during the argument. Progress, I think.

Googling “justice charon” – voila! – one of the very few references to the phrase is on a discussion board on Consilio, the daily online magazine, original home of Charon QC.

22/10/04. The Canadian Supreme Court added two female Judges, Madam Justice Charon and Madam Justice Abella to it’s panel, making the Supreme Court of Canada the most gender balanced court in the world.

But ironically, both references to the Honourable Madam Justice are incorrect. She is Louise Charron – a different mode of transport altogether.

Does IT matter?

Nicholas Carr’s article IT Doesn’t Matter, originally published in the Harvard Business Review in May 2003 and reproduced on his Rough Type blog, caused quite a stir. His argument, expanded in the 2004 book Does IT Matter?, can be summarised through these excerpts:

You only gain an edge over rivals by having or doing something that they can’t have or do. By now, the core functions of IT – data storage, data processing, and data transport – have become available and affordable to all. Their very power and presence have begun to transform them from potentially strategic resources into commodity factors of production. They are becoming costs of doing business that must be paid by all but provide distinction to none.

… For a brief period, as they were being built into the infrastructure of commerce, all these technologies opened opportunities for forward-looking companies to gain real advantages. But as their availability increased and their cost decreased – as they became ubiquitous – they became commodity inputs. From a strategic standpoint, they became invisible; they no longer mattered. That is exactly what is happening to information technology today, and the implications for corporate IT management are profound.

… The arrival of the Internet has accelerated the commoditization of IT by providing a perfect delivery channel for generic applications. More and more, companies will fulfill their IT requirements simply by purchasing fee-based “Web services” from third parties – similar to the way they currently buy electric power or telecommunications services.

… Every year, businesses purchase more than 100 million PCs, most of which replace older models. Yet the vast majority of workers who use PCs rely on only a few simple applications – word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, and Web browsing. These applications have been technologically mature for years; they require only a fraction of the computing power provided by today’s microprocessors. Nevertheless, companies continue to roll out across-the-board hardware and software upgrades.

… IT management should, frankly, become boring. The key to success, for the vast majority of companies, is no longer to seek advantage aggressively but to manage costs and risks meticulously. If, like many executives, you’ve begun to take a more defensive posture toward IT in the last two years, spending more frugally and thinking more pragmatically, you’re already on the right course. The challenge will be to maintain that discipline when the business cycle strengthens and the chorus of hype about IT’s strategic value rises anew.

Rough Type is highly recommended for anyone with a keen interest in the business and cultural implications of information technology.

A few picks from recent posts:

In praise of the parasitic blogger:

I like to think of the blogosphere as a vast, earth-engirdling digestive track, breaking down the news of the day into ever finer particles of meaning (and ever more concentrated toxins). Another word for “parasitic,” in this context, is “critical.” Blogging is at its essence a critical form, a means of recycling other writings to ensure that every nutritional molecule, whether real or imagined, is fully consumed. To be called a literary parasite is no insult. It’s a compliment.

Seven rules for corporate blogging:

People blogging on behalf of their employers don’t need to wear suits, but they should wear clothes. Independent bloggers can afford to blog “naked.” Corporate bloggers can’t.

The amorality of Web 2.0:

Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It’s a set of technologies – a machine, not a Machine – that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn’t care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn’t care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn’t care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn’t care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one. So let’s can the millenialist rhetoric and see the thing for what it is, not what we wish it would be.

In countering Viacom’s $1 billion suit against YouTube, Google relies on the “safe harbor” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to shield it from liability for third party copyright infringements. That’s stretching it a bit says OUT-Law.com.

In Viacom’s words, “the YouTube strategy has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on its site, … shifting the entire burden … of monitoring YouTube on to the victims of its infringement”, and Struan Robertson on OUT-Law argues that, following a Supreme Court ruling against file-sharing firms Grokster and Streamcast in 2005, if this amounts to promoting the infringements, Google could be liable.

The safe harbour provisions were designed to protect ISPs and web hosts acting (as I see it) as innocent conduits for third party publication. Then along come services like YouTube where the “service provider” is in most respects the publisher rather than a dumb network of pipes. Should these publishers not be obliged to police their sites?

Added: As Lawrence Lessig points out, the case should be decided on the meaning of s512(c) of the DMCA. The question will be whether YouTube has the “ability to control” uploads before they are identified as infringing.

I had lunch with Charon on Friday; then he died.

It has not made a blind bit of difference. Looks like he will be as prolific from the grave.

Perhaps he perked up when he watched the rugby.

Steven Matthews at Slaw alerts us to the new CanLII beta site.

As well as a smart new design and other features I have not not yet investigated, CanLII now provides RSS feeds for recently added/modified decisions for all courts.

Well done guys. Let’s see the same from BAILII.

In the first few days following the launch of the SLD there was a fair amount of comment and criticism. But since then … zilch.

Is everyone ecstatically happy with it, reserving their judgment or quietly cursing its shortcomings?

As a leading proponent for early and open access to the SLD (indeed, a main campaigner according to the Beeb), I’m keen to know how useful lawyers are finding it in practice. I comment and criticise from my ivory tower, but what do the workers think?

Great post by Doc Searls on why the mainstream media should open up their walled gardens:

The Net is a giant zero. It puts everybody zero distance from everybody and everything else. And it supports publishing and broadcasting at costs that round to zero as well.

It is essential for the mainstream media to understand that the larger information ecosystem is one that grows wild on the Net and supports everybody who wants to inform anybody else. It no longer grows inside the mainstream media’s walled gardens. Those gardens will continue to thrive only to the degree that they do two things: 1) open up; and 2) live symbiotically with individuals outside who want to work together for common purposes.

Framing is a huge issue here. We have readers and viewers, not just “audiences” and “consumers”. We write articles and essays and posts, not just “generate content”. “User-generated content”, or UGC, is an ugly, insulting and misleading label.

“Content” is inert. It isn’t alive. It doesn’t grow, or catch fire, or go viral. Ideas and insights do that. Interesting facts do that. “Audiences” are passive. They sit still, clap and leave. That might be what happened with newspapers and radio and TV in the old MSM-controlled world, but it’s not what happens on The Giant Zero. It’s not what happens with blogging, or with citizen journalism. Here it’s all about contribution, participation. It involves conversation, but it goes beyond that into relationship – with readers, with viewers, with the larger ecosystem by which we all inform each other.

… Established media institutions have enormous advantages. But they can’t use them if they continue to live in denial of the nature of their new world – and of the interests, talents and natural independence of the other inhabitants there.

Although Doc refers principally to the mainstream news media, his comments are applicable to publishers across the board. As the net develops, it is increasingly difficult for publishers to assert their proprietary rights and charge for content using old subscription models. They must open up more content and develop alternative models for leveraging its value. As an example in UK law publishing, witness the climb-down by the DCA in opening up the Statute Law Database.

Publishers must not simply add Web 2.0 widgets to their existing services. They must embrace “citizen journalists” and acknowledge the contributions made rather than seek to exploit them. On this Doc quotes Dan Kennedy:

Corporate media executives who genuinely want to use citizen-media tools to build community and experiment with new business models will be rewarded for their efforts.

But those who think they can profit by suckering amateurs into giving away their content will soon discover that what they’ve created is a host of new competitors.

In an article in Information World Review, Will Web 2.0 revolutionise information providers or kill them?, Peter Lake, chairman of the Sweet & Maxwell Group, give his views on its implications for law publishers. Simon Chester on Slaw has helpfully excerpted the comments. Here are a few, stripped of all the original context:

The challenge to publishers is how we put our content into new and meaningful contexts. …

The problem is trying to get the benefit of Web 2.0 to people who are restrained by rules. …

Legal publishers are always adding on top of proprietary data. The legal market is based on people commenting.

I’m not entirely sure sure what to make of all this. I shall seek to find out.

My feeling is that Sweet & Maxwell and the other established law publishers will initially seek to leverage existing information services by adding Web 2.0 functions, whereas the generational leap requires them to start with a blank sheet and develop new services from the ground up

« Older entries