Carmelo Fontana < weblog >

New Rules for Cookies in the EU

2011-02-05T03:54:00.000-08:00

I posted a blog in Italian on the implementation of the recent changes in EU regulation on Cookies.
If you don't speak Italian you can take a peak using Google Translate.
This is the link to the Italian version and this is the link to the English automated Translation.

Privacy Seals - How Useful Are They?

2010-06-22T22:16:00.000-07:00

Recently, I've been considering whether to get a privacy seal for my start-up. A privacy seal (which is a species of a trust seal) is a certification offered by a private company that essentially confirms that a website's privacy policies and other documents/features after testing your privacy policies comply with US law, EU safe harbor, COPPA, etc.

Cost.
Of course, the first thing to consider (putting on my business hat) is how much does it cost and what is the return?

For a young start-up, the cost of a basic seal (certifying just the privacy policy) is around $1000. Then, if you start adding services (dispute resolution with customers), certification of Safe Harbor compliance or certification on other features (emails, applications), the cost goes up and can quickly reach $5,000.

In fact, the pricing model of most of the (very few) companies offering privacy seals is based on the amount of revenue generated by the website - the higher the revenues, the higher the cost. So, if a company has revenues of, let's say, $5 million - the cost of the certification will be about $10,000. So, relatively speaking, it is not so expensive.

Legal Value.
The seal is just a nice stamp on the website and does not have any specific legal value. It may represent a good marketing tool, but before starting to pay money for the certification I would consider many different things to assess the potential return. Moreover, it is important to consider the quality of the company making the certification.

Recently, certification company ControlScan was the subject of charges brought by the FTC for misleading consumers regarding the significance of a ControlScan certification seal. Theoretically, the companies who used ControlScan certifications could also be subject to suits over this issue. Obviously, no one is interested in buying a litigation risk. So, before shelling out the money for a certification, it is advisable to double-check the company doing the certification.

Best Practices.
A good reason to consider having a privacy seal is that many of the major Internet companies have it. It may be especially helpful to have such a seal in the area of privacy law (where the interpretation is not always straightforward and enforcement is uncertain). It is always a good idea to be in line with the best practices in the industry. Theoretically, this could provide a defense against some kinds of litigation.

Return.
Of course, improving the website reputation and bolstering users' trust is a revenue driver... yet, before getting too excited, I think it is necessary to consider the specific nature of the services offered by the site and the dynamic of the user base. For instance, I believe the seal may be more important for an e-commerce site and less important for an search engine or a general portal.

Also, it is very important to understand the meaning/reputation that the privacy seal may have in the specific users' community. For instance, I believe that certain seals may be more reputable than others in certain jurisdictions while, in some communities, the seals (and privacy issues in general) may not have sufficient relevance to justify the expense.

Additionally, some services may use other tools to enhance users' trust and consumer reliance. For instance, in B2B services, the reputation of the company and the existence of a close relationship very likely supersede the value of a third party seal.

My call.
For my start-up, I think it is not worth the money. The nature of the service provided, the business model, and the close relationship with users weigh against getting a privacy seal.

On the other hand, moving forward as revenues increase, the cost of the seal may become marginal and it might not hurt to get it.

Facebook About to Change Privacy Policy. Again...

2010-05-23T16:06:00.000-07:00

It took me a bit to understand and figure out all the privacy options on Facebook... And now it may be time to start all over again.
I concede that some changes were REALLY necessary. However, updating the policies and modifying the control interface so frequently is also affecting users' ability to understand what is going on.
Perhaps FB will send a notice to inform of the changes and proactively explain...

Google: Agreement With Italian Antitrust Authority

2010-05-14T15:03:00.000-07:00

Following an investigation by the Italian Antitrust authority, Google agreed to change its terms of use regarding AdSense and to allow more transparency in the rev-sharing with publishers and content providers. Also, considering the alleged abuse of dominant position with respect to Google News, Google agreed to maintain separation between News and Search indexing. Accordingly, Google will keep deploying separate set of crawls to feed into its News aggregator. As a result, publishers and content providers will be able to pull-out of Google News while keeping their visibility intact on Google Search.

Here is the document with the details (in Italian...).

In fact, I believe that this agreement underscores the powerful connection between Google's two products AdSense and Google News. Another way to look at the issue could be considering the ongoing negotiation between Google and content providers as to achieve a fair rev-sharing deal with respect to Google News ads revenues.
Probably, AdSense was not considered a viable solution anymore, given the little transparency allowed by Google's trade secrets. However, it seems that Google and the newspaper industry are moving forward and coordinating their business models since Google is now willing to disclose information about the revenues generated out of the publishers' content.
I have the feeling that more open policies in AdSense may also cast some light on the existence of price discriminations amongst different kinds of content and content providers (i.e. AdSense affiliates). If this is the case, the ads market will surely benefit from it and even the "little guys" may be able to cut better deals for their content.

Art. 29 Working Party: unacceptable that Facebook changed default settings to the user's detriment

2010-05-13T16:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Art. 29 Working Party issued a press release where it declared it unacceptable that Facebook radically altered its privacy policies to the detriment of users.
The issue concerns the default settings. The WP recommended:

a default setting in which access to the profile information and information about the connections of a user is limited to self-selected contacts. Any further access, such as by search engines, should be an explicit choice of the user.

However, Facebook users know that it is necessary to navigate the privacy settings and go through a series of opt-outs.
Furthermore, the WP points out to Facebook and other social networks the lesson learned by Google in Italy: when a user uploads some contents involving a third party's personal data it is necessary to "to obtain free and unambiguous consent."
On the latter point there are still some fundamental technical problems. In fact, I am not sure how it would be possible to protect the interests of third parties by assigning such tasks to the social network platform, unless the WP requires that Facebook or other social networking sites add another check-box on their terms ... something like this:

"You represent that the uploaded or shared content (" Content ") does not violate the privacy and / or other personal rights of third parties and that in any case you have previously obtained free and unambiguous consent to the publication of the Content from the owner of any personal data or personal rights relating to the Content."

It would be easy for users to mark this check-box (among the many). Who knows if this will be more effective than similar disclaimers about copyrighted content.

CHECK ...

Brief History of Online Feedback / Rating... Some Thoughts

2010-05-08T20:35:00.000-07:00

Stage 1. Men were created with the ability to have opinions of their own. Opinions can be complex, simple, logical, contradictory, expressed verbally, non-verbally, etc.

Stage 2. Then men became Internet users and were allowed to give feedback on a 5-star basis. Internet users still have opinions and share them in form of "Comments".

Stage 3. Following, users had the possibility to give a thumb up OR a thumb down. Users can reply to comments or even re-post them in their own opinion-stream.

Stage 4. More recently, users can "Like" stuff. No complexity whatsoever is necessary nor allowed. Similarly, any negative feedback is unpractical (or curtailed) since it would be bad form with respect to "business partners" of the site in use. Yes, it is possible to write something if you really, really care (which happens when you are upset about a service you paid for). However, other than in such case, who bothers about typing if they can just click.

But wait, there is more. The evolution of feedback and rating systems is not limited to the progressive simplification of the tools and the user interface. It rather (and more importantly) concerns what data are collected and associated with the users' ratings.

The person who is rating content or items (the "rater") has become the center of the action. This is somehow counterintuitive, yet the most valuable information for the website has nothing to do with the items rated thereby. In fact, the most valuable information is that one concerning the "rater": its tastes, preferences, behavior, etc.

Therefore, it is key that such information is made as standard and accessible as possible. For this reason rating on one dimension ("Like" button) may work better and eliminates certain "noise" in users' behavior analysis. Hence, simplification is functional to enhance user-profiling and, eventually, to better target those users with relevant ads.

On the other hand, all kinds of feedback regarding content/items have become a very effective "bait" to incentivize interaction and attract traffic. This happens despite being common knowledge that on-line feedback and ratings are easily manipulated and often unreliable.

I believe we can start looking at feedback and ratings from a different perspective. In fact, I have the impression that their social significance has changed as they do not represent anymore a vehicle to convey opinions but rather a form of basic interaction to show an acknowledgment that something does exist. To the contrary, if there is no "Like" button underneath it, such thing cannot be part of the user's profile for advertising purposes. And, that somehow makes that piece of content invisible on the Internet.

Privacy Bill Introduced. More Notices and Consent.

2010-05-06T15:58:00.000-07:00

The House of Representatives recently introduced a bill (pdf here) that, if passed, would significantly change the game of privacy regulation. The bill requires notice to and, in some cases, consent of an individual prior to the collection and disclosure of certain personal information related to that individual.
This bill will raise the bar for all businesses, whether on-line or off-line. It also promises to harmonize the US regulation with the higher EU standard.
However, one of the limits of this proposed bill is that it stresses the importance of privacy policies and privacy notices, while both the Internet industry and consumer groups seem to agree that privacy policies are ineffective since very few people read them and even fewer can understand their content.

Facebook and Site Open Governance (Again)

2010-03-26T13:51:00.000-07:00

Facebook is very aware that every move it makes is recorded and meticulously analyzed by observers from all countries.

Then, Facebook came up with the brilliant idea to turn this attention to his advantage by inviting its user base and said observers to join the debate about the governance of the site.

In other words, Facebook is now going to change its TOS and Privacy Policy and is asking users' feedback.

HERE's blog where the proposed changes are discussed.

I will add my comments soon (unless in the next few hours they decide to make no changes at all).

Facebook Settles Beacon Privacy Class Action

2010-03-18T10:27:00.000-07:00

Past December 2009, Facebook contacted its user to inform them of the existence of this class action.
If you were wondering what happened, a $9.5 million settlement has been approved.
Here you find more details.

Definition of Controller and Processor in Data Treatment

2010-03-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

On Feb. 16, the Art. 29 Data Protection Working Party released its Opinion 1/2010 on the concepts of "controller" and "processor". I find it an extremely useful attempt to re-embrace the definition of such concepts, especially after the Google Italia case.

Among the many examples, the opinion also contains some interesting insights about Behavioral Advertising.

Italian Republic v. Google Video. Why Was Google Convicted?

2010-03-04T01:41:00.000-08:00

Three of Google's executives were recently convicted by the Court of Milan for violating Italian privacy laws. Google's executives were held liable because Google Video, hosted, allowed comments and did not promptly (or promptly enough upon notice) take down a video portraying a disabled kid getting abused by his schoolmates. The schoolmates who actually uploaded the video were convicted and sentenced to 10 months of community service. You may find a more complete description of the facts here.

The ruling is subject to appeal and Google has said it will challenge the ruling. Many people have commented on the case reflecting upon its deep implications over freedom of speech, privacy law and the Internet business model. I personally share the concern that prior control over UGC might dangerously compress freedom of speech, yet the solution certainly is not to neglect users' and third parties’ privacy protection. The bottom line is that such a ruling may shake the foundations of the Internet industry and that nobody I know has a clear idea about a good trade-off among the many conflicting interests.

In this post, however, I will more simply focus on explaining the probable reasons for the Google conviction. I say "probable" because the full opinion has not yet been published. Still, I have an impression of the probable reasons for the conviction based upon reading the statements released by Google's attorney and the Prosecutor in charge of the case.

Reason #1. There is no safe harbor for privacy violations. This may be surprising for most Internet companies but, as a matter of law, EU privacy regulation in general, and the Italian one in particular, do NOT apply the safe harbor exemption to matters concerning the right to privacy. It may appear like a loophole in the system, but probably, when drafting the E-Commerce directive, the EU legislator did not have in mind a service totally based on UGC, such as a video sharing platform. Directive 2000/31/CE shields mere conduit, cashing and hosting services against commercial liabilities, but not against the rights "of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data...".

Article 1, §5, lett. b of the E-Commerce directive says: "This Directive shall not apply to: ...
(b) questions relating to information society services covered by Directives 95/46/EC and 97/66/EC."

Guess what subject matter is regulated by Directive 95/46/EC?

Pretty straight forward, isn't it? If there is no safe harbor for a privacy violation --> liability of the service provider for contributing to the criminal conduct.

The same regulation applies in Italy by virtue of the Legislative Decree n. 70, 2003 art. 1, comma 2 lett. b which precludes the application of the safe harbor regime (art. 14 and ff.) for matters involving privacy rights.

Reason #2. Google violated the Italian Personal Data Protection Code. Google's counsel released a statement indicating the rules allegedly violated by Google, as specified in the indictment: art. 23, 26 and 17 of the Data Protection Code. art. 23 and art. 26 (here an official version in English) provide that before processing any personal data it is necessary to seek consent of the owner of the data. This is necessary moreover (written consent is required) if the processing concerns sensitive data, such as the existence of a heath condition. It is probable that the Court considered that depicting the likeness of a person affected by Down Syndrome is sufficient to constitute "processing of sensitive data", considering the apparent and recognizable existence of a heath condition in the person portrayed.

Art. 17 provides a general obligation to consult with the Data Protection Authority before initiating any potentially dangerous processing of personal data. The violation of such article may be construed as creating liability for other independent violations. We'll see when the opinion is published...

Reason #3. Google did not take down the video promptly. Proof of a prompt take down is crucial to prove or disprove damages. In fact, damages are necessary for the application of the criminal sanction set forth in art. 167 of the Data Protection Code.

Google took the video down after the police made such request. The victim's representative argued that the video was actually accessible for about 2 months and, even after the video was flagged by some users and a take down notice filed by the victim's representative, Google did not respond with the requested promptness.

Thus, the Prosecutor accused Google of being inefficient and untimely in taking down the video since, as Google's deputy general counsel for Europe also admits, Google took the video down only when the police asked to do so, many days after the first flagging. However, there is no clear information about the timeline of mentioned facts. We'll see...

Furthermore, the Court probably concluded that the accessibility of the video for about 2 months, coupled with the significant amount of views and comments, gave Google notice (or should have given Google notice) of the existence of the video. This is my speculation. We'll see...

Unfortunately, there is no black letter law applicable to take down notices for privacy violations. In fact, nothing like the DMCA exists in the EU even with respect to IP rights. I bet Google misses the clear cut provisions of the DMCA when dealing with the EU.

In fact, the Prosecutor remarked about Google's vague and evasive attitude towards certain requests for discovery. It turns out that Google was unable to restore the original page with the comments or to produce the first flagging of the video. Google’s defense is, according to the Prosecutor, that producing this evidence was too costly and complicated for Google's engineers. Well, the Court might have thought it wasn't...

P2P Sharing and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

2010-02-19T10:22:00.000-08:00

Having a reasonable expectation of privacy is the basis for the application of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution which provides protection against illegal searches and seizures. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the items to be searched the police must get a warrant before any search. Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule (exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, etc.)... but let's talk about a computer.

Do we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of our hard drives? It depends on what software you are running. The law says that if you run a peer to peer, you impliedly accept that people can access the contents of your files. Therefore, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As a consequence, if the police find evidence of illegality, such evidence can be used to prosecute you.

This is what case law says about file-sharing and this principle was recently reaffirmed in a child-pornography case.

The defense attorneys in this case tried to distinguish the facts arguing the complexity of the tools used by the police to access the computer of the suspect and his subjective mental state. Of course, the subjective mental state is irrelevant and the argument of "system penetration" (AKA hacking) was trumped by the circumstance that the data was otherwise accessible through a "widespread" exposition to the public. In fact, there was not any system penetration and the government only used a hash-mark analysis as a sorting mechanism to prevent the government from having to sift, one by one, through suspect's already publicly exposed files.

However, this case is important in clarifying at least one principle.
What if you are using a sharing software that you think is not publicly accessible? If the functioning of the software implies exchange of communication, you are advised of your reduced expectation of privacy.

Here is the decision.

Europarliament Says No to SWIFT

2010-02-18T09:38:00.000-08:00

Last week (on Feb 12) the European Parliament did not renew its commitment to the SWIFT agreement. Such agreement was adopted after 9.11 as an anti-terror measure that allowed US authorities to monitor EU financial transactions.

The news went under the radar, but it is a very significant change in the EU attitude towards data protection and civil liberties. Also, this is a result of Treaty of Lisbon, which gave lawmakers the power to review and approve measures that effect internal security.

The political rationale of such position may be summarized as follow: "We need to apply EU standards to EU data", "to give people a right of redress" in the event of misuse of personal data, and to allow access to data "on a case by case basis".

Here the press release of the Civil Liberty Committee. Here the comment of the WSJ.

La SIAE e i Monopoli di Stato contro i Video Poker illegali (in ITALIAN)

2010-02-17T11:04:00.000-08:00

La SIAE ha siglato un accordo con i Monopoli di Stato per contribuire alle ispezioni relative all' "utilizzo illegale degli apparecchi da divertimento e intrattenimento" (forse i video-poker manomessi? ).

Premesso che non ho letto l'accordo e non so quale sia la legal-basis per questa collaborazione -- solo alcune riflessioni da profano.

1) Sicuramente e' un importante contributo alle attivita' di enforcement e una interessante soluzione per sfruttare la capillare presenza della SIAE sul territorio. La SIAE indubbiamente svolge un serivizio utilissimo;

2) E' anche un modo creativo di esplorare nuovi "stream of revenues" che poterbbero aiutare la ristrutturazione dell'ente e re-interpretarne (in parte) la funzione sociale (anche a seguito delle polemiche degli ultimi giorni);

3) Ma cosa c'entra il diritto d'autore? E gli eventuali compensi riscossi (immagino una percentuale delle sanzioni o una flat-fee versata da parte dei monopoli) andrebbero distribuiti agli associati?

In altre parole, e scusate la banalizzazione, a che titolo Adriano Celentano potrebbe ricevere una frazione della multa pagata dal bar di quartiere di Centocelle per avere manomesso il flipper... e in quel bar, peraltro, il mangiacassette e' rotto da anni e non si verifica alcuna diffusione di opere protette... :)

International Patent Filings and Economic Downturn are Correlated

2010-02-14T22:07:00.000-08:00

WIPO observed that the number of patent filings under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in 2009 was significantly lower that the preceding year.
Here is what WIPO observed in details.
This is probably because the economic downturn that has affected both the inventive activity (less resources for R&D) and the IP protection strategy adopted by firms.
It is arguable than many firms and small inventors preferred a local approach to patent filings, perhaps envisioning that global protection might make sense only at a later stage.

Data Protection Day, EC says Privacy will be big challenge in next decade

2010-01-28T15:38:00.000-08:00

EU Commissioner Viviane Reding acknowledged the importance of protection of Europeans' rights. What I liked about this statement is the clear identification of a handful of really hot and complicated issues:

behavioural advertising;
social networking sites;
smart chips used to trace people movements;
Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights enforcement with respect to privacy.

The principle, said EU commissioner, is that "EU rules should allow everyone to realise their right to know when their personal data can be lawfully processed... and to say no to it whenever they want."

I know I am silly, but "realise the right to know" is a bit different from actually knowing... :)

Floobs to File for Bankruptcy

2010-01-22T09:32:00.000-08:00

Floobs, a Finnish livestreaming/video-sharing website, declared it is about to file for bankruptcy.
It is a shame that a well designed and original website is unable to move forward.
Some months ago many people were celebrating a new happy season for Internet start-ups.
Is it really so sunny outside?

Privacy Compliance is Optional

2010-01-20T01:58:00.000-08:00

NYT today reports that Bing (Microsoft) declared that it would comply with privacy regulation.

Irrespective of any comments on MS's statement, I believe it is interesting how public opinion has become used to privacy NON-compliance. Insomuch that the news is the statement of compliance.

NYT also notices: “Google and other engines are starting to realize that consumers around the world are placing an increasing value on privacy and that can have business consequences.”

It seems that privacy regulation is considered rather an inconvenient hassle to deal with just to improve corporate reputation before customers. I wonder what happened to that old principle AKA Rule of Law...

Then I wonder, is the current situation due to a very cumbersome and barely inapplicable regulation? Or it is rather due to insufficient enforcement mechanism? Or both?

The Economics of Terrorism

2010-01-15T17:14:00.000-08:00

I would like to feature this interesting TED talk by Loretta Napoleoni about the Economics of terroristic organizations. This presentation is IMHO enlightening at least to add perspective to the way we look at terrorism. For instance, I did not know that Patriot Act had consequences on the monetary system. Did you know that the currency most used for money laundry is now the Euro?

The Pirate Bay Case - Italian Supreme Court's Ruling (New Safe Harbor Created?)

2009-12-28T18:03:00.000-08:00

Do you remember the Pirate Bay case (TPB)? The website thepiratebay.org was subject to a temporary restraining order (TRO) in relation to a criminal copyright proceeding pending before the Court of Bergamo. The order was successfully challenged by defendant TPB. Following, the prosecutor brought the case before the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation seeking reversal. The Supreme Court shared the prosecutor's position, and vacated the ruling remitting to the lower Court.

The issue with the TRO was mainly concerning the possibility to restrain a website by ordering the ISP not to connect to such identified URL and respective sub-pages. Although such issue of practical and effective restriction of the access to a website is very interesting, I find that another notable part of the ruling concerns the "fumus commissi delicti", AKA the reasonable probability of success on the merits.

The Court anticipated TPB's liability and meanwhile mentioned a couple of interesting things about the standard for contributory infringement and (perhaps?) a new safe harbor.

The Court acknowledged that the primary infringement was undoubtedly conducted by the website-users for being them the authors of the uploading. Yet, TPB is liable because it contributed to the relevant conduct by indexing the torrent files, and by providing a search engine to access such files. Hence, the threshold for contributory infringement lays with these additional activities which constitute sufficient basis to charge TBD as co-conspirator in the infringing conduct ("concorso nel reato").

But the very interesting is that, according to the Court, TPB would be innocent if its conduct was "completely agnostic" (i.e. just unaware...) of the content of the files uploaded by users. Hence, this decision adopts a very severe notion of control with respect to the infringing conduct, being mere knowledge sufficient.

The Court goes forward and surprisingly states that such agnostic situation is present in the social networking sites because in such SNS the indexing and listing of files is performed at a peripheral level, by users. Thus, only the users (uploading files) may be found liable. And this is pretty much where ~~the decision doesn't make sense~~ I get lost...

Anyway, few things seem clear enough: 1) providing a file-sharing tool is O.K. as long as the files are not indexed and/or searchable (so... Google beware!); 2) if torrents, links or other content are "agnostically" stored is still O.K., 3) if you share copyrighted material on a social network you may end up being the only one liable.

Here below in the image is the relevant part of the ruling... in Italian.

Compare New and Old Privacy Policy

2009-12-22T04:57:00.000-08:00

It isn't always easy to compare the latest version of a on-line document with the prior... especially when the old document is promptly removed for legal reasons. If you need a Delta-View (a redline) combined with a Feedburner to catch up with all TOS and Privacy Policy modifications by major Internet companies, well, Tosback.org is a great tool.

Here, for example, it is the new paragraph added by Facebook in the new Privacy Policy:

"Certain categories of information such as your name, profile photo, list of friends and pages you are a fan of, gender, geographic region, and networks you belong to are considered publicly available to everyone, including Facebook-enhanced applications, and therefore do not have privacy settings. You can, however, limit the ability of others to find this information through search using your search privacy settings."

Facebook Big Brother - Personal is Public

2009-12-20T17:33:00.000-08:00

Mediaset Wins Injunction Vs. Youtube (UPDATED)

2009-12-17T20:21:00.000-08:00

This post is in Italian... Sorry :)

Leggo il post di Matteo Flora, consulente di Mediaset, che diffonde il comunicato della vittoria di Mediaset contro Youtube nel contenzioso riguardante la rimozione di contenuti Mediaset su Youtube.

Queste alcune mie considerazioni "a caldo", cosi' come postate in commento al blog di Matteo:

Davvero non capisco cosa ci sia di "storico" nel fare rimuovere da Youtube contenuti gia' accertati "illeciti". E non ci voleva certo il giudice ad accertare che "il Grande Fratello" sia un prodotto proprietario. Quanto alla responsabilita' (per "contributory/secondary infringment" forse, vista la qualifica di editore) di Youtube, la decisione ristabilisce una nozione di controllo che riporta la giurispurdenza italiana ai tempi di Napster.
Comunque il dispositivo della decisione e' ASSOLUTAMENTE OVVIO

[-- l'immediata rimozione di immagini fisse o video relative al "Grande Fratello" decima edizione;

-- di terminare immediatamente la violazione dei diritti connessi al GF;

-- il respingimento delle richieste di entrambe le parti.]
Infatti, pittosto che una costosa lite dinanzi all'AGO Mediaset avrebbe, altrattanto efficaciemente, potuto invocare una rimozione (Take Down) con una DMCA Take Down Notice (regime interamente recepito dai TOS di Youtube). E avrebbe probabilmente potuto trovare un accordo con Youtube sulle modalita’ per l’identificazione dei contenuti ritenuti infringing. Del resto fanno cosi’ content provider della rinomanza di Lucas Film, Universal Studios, CBS, etc. etc. Ancora, molti di questi content provider sono riusciti a concludere con Youtube accordi di rev-sharing relativi agli ads collocati nelle pagine con contenuti proprietari oltre ad includere nei video meccanismi di promozione diretta dei propri contenuti. La scarsa conoscenza del mezzo e la ricerca di una sentenza di grande risonanza mediatica hanno invece portato a questa strategia (processuale e di business) poco lungimirante e difficilmente remunerativa, IMHO. Sono in attesa di vedere come nel merito Mediaset quantifichera’ i danni… considerando che potrebbe vedersi eccepire, in compensazione, le addizionali revenues generate dalla maggior diffusione dei propri contenuti. Noto a margine che in Italia non esistono neppure i treble damages da applicare al willful infringement… Per cui: se l’effetto positivo e’ superiore alla effettiva diminuzione degli ascolti o del valore dell’opera protetta: niente danno e la sanzione dovra’ essere solo ingiuntiva…. Cioe’ la stessa cosa che si sarebbe potuta ottenere in via non contenziosa compilando un modulo di poche righe. Ma, come si dice... À la guerre comme à la guerre!

UPDATE Preciso che non si tratta di compensazione in senso tecnico, come domanda o eccezione riconvenzionale (nel qual caso sarebbe necessario un credito). Ma si tratta di un effetto di limitazione/eliminazione del danno (compensa in senso economico), da valutarsi ai sensi del 1223 e ai sensi del 1226 c.c.. In mancanza di “conseguenze economiche negative” Mediaset ha diritto solo alla tutela ingiuntiva e i danni morali... Visto che nel nostro ordinamento non esistono danni punitivi.

EU Ratifies WIPO Internet Treaties

2009-12-14T17:00:00.000-08:00

The EU formally ratified the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (together known as the "Internet Treatisies"). In practice, this is not a revolution for the applicable regulation since: 1) many EU member States were already and directly parties to these treaties; 2) the content of the WIPO Internet Treaties was mostly included in the Directive 2001/29/EC (Copyright Directive - implemented by all the 27 EU members).

However, this ratification has a symbolic meaning because it is the first time that the EU holds the status of contracting party in the field of copyright. This surely represents a strong endorsement of the WIPO's role in reinforcing international copyright protection and the rights of performers and phonogram producers on the Internet and other digital networks.

Berlusconi's Smile Crashed - UPDATED

2009-12-13T13:19:00.000-08:00

I woke up this morning (9 hours later than people in Italy) and I see this picture.

The person who punched Berlusconi (actually hit him with a small statue of the Milan's Duomo), Mr. Massimo Tartaglia, has been under psychological treatment for more than 10 years. Hence, I'd rather not talk about any political significance of such violent action.

Also, I woke up this morning and I read this article on the New York Times about how political opinions displayed on social networks are monitored by the CIA and the Department of Defense.
Here is the remainder of my considerations:

On Facebook, one hour after the punch, a group in support of Massimo Tartaglia was created and over ~~19,000~~ 22,000 (increased 3,000 by the time I posted this blog) people joined in the next 3 hours. Are there so many people who hate Berlusconi? Apparently yes...
On Twitter (#Berlusconi) the event is receiving huge global coverage at a pace of about 50 twits every minute throughout the last 3 hours. Comments are not flattering for Berlusconi who is not very loved even abroad.
All these people who participated in sharing or commenting the news about Berlusconi are disclosing very sensitive data about their political opinions. Are they aware of the risk of being recorded or profiled? I'd go on out a limb and say no...
Last but not least --security services where art thou? Isn't it unbelievable that anybody could plant a jab in the face of the Italian prime minister?

UPDATE: The group in support of Tartaglia was deleted. Facebook groups about Berlusconi are monitored by the Government. Fake groups in support of Berlusconi were created by changing the title of big existing groups (some created for charity). The situation has never been so bad for freedom of speech in Italy... not in the last 61 years.

Possible Conversation With My Brother

2009-12-11T19:46:00.000-08:00

Facebook Publishing Settings

2009-12-11T19:16:00.000-08:00

Facebook keeps asking me if I intend to change my privacy settings or stick with the old ones. Well, I tried to choose the latter but it looks like my decision was not convincing for Facebook... In fact, when today it prompted me again with the same question (and I replied in the same way) I found that my "old" settings were not the old ones whatsoever. So, I patiently had to go back, review and re-uncheck everything... because, in case you had any doubts, the default settings are such that you share everything.
So, why don't they just come clean and start asking whether you want to manage your publishing settings?

".EU" TLD in 23 Language Characters

2009-12-10T12:00:00.000-08:00

Now we can register a domain name with all kind of Cyrillic or Greek characters, such as "Удача.eu"(*) or "Καλήτύχη.eu"(*). This is good news!

I frankly think it is a very good ~~marketing~~ idea to spread ".eu" TLD names locally. This solution will also benefit of all the proud users of á, â, é, ê í, î, ó, ø, ö, ø, ô, ú, ü, etc. It is a good thing... Perhaps, not really a game changing feature, but it will help many people to use the web in their own language.
However, I doubt that such use of the ".eu" TLD will also help the global audience to reach these websites.
One issue is as obvious as important: keyboards. Not everybody will be able to use the international characters unless clearly displayed on a keyboard.
I suppose that Internet browsers will have to start working pretty soon at some version of an integrated virtual keyboard, possibly with translation features. It's not a bad idea to drop a request to Mozilla...

(*) Both domain names mean "Good Luck."
Please do not squat this URLs :)

Privacy Means User's Education

2009-12-09T15:18:00.000-08:00

A couple of years ago Sophos made an interesting research showing that 41% of Facebook users were happy to disclose information to strangers.

Today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, commenting the new privacy settings on Facebook, argues (among the other things) that despite the new settings allow improved privacy it is not at all easy to understand the best protective configuration.

Again, the problem ends up being that users often aren't aware of what they need to do to protect their privacy. Probably because not everybody is entirely aware of the risks of data mishandling or identity theft.

Creative Commons Meet in Rome...

2009-12-09T13:41:00.001-08:00

And this time I am gonna make it!

Facebook Offers to Settle Privacy Class Action

2009-12-09T13:02:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I received an interesting message from Facebook (not my friends on Facebook...):

Facebook is sending you this notice of a proposed class action settlement that may affect your legal rights as a Facebook member who may have used the Beacon program. [...]
Under the proposed settlement, Facebook will terminate the Beacon program. In addition, Facebook will provide $9.5 million to establish an independent non-profit foundation that will identify and fund projects and initiatives that promote the cause of online privacy, safety, and security. [...]

This was already on the media some weeks ago. Now, you can also read all the details and documents regarding this case HERE. Facebook admitted no liability for the Beacon case. It is very generous that Facebook offered to pay $9.5 to establish a non-profit...

New Template!

2009-12-08T10:21:00.000-08:00

I've just uploaded this new template for the blog... much nicer, I think.

SNS Traffic and Privacy in UK

2009-03-20T15:33:00.000-07:00

I'd like just to feature this piece of news I found on Cnet. Apparently keeping users' communication data for one year is not enough. In future, be mindful of what you send and share with your British contacts on Facebook... it might be relevant in a very distant future, still TBD.

Sex sells... it sells better if viral

2009-03-04T13:49:00.000-08:00

I was on Youtube watching some random news about Berlusconi and Geddhafi playing best friends and at the end of the video I got prompted with a quite sticky advertisement by TripAdvisor. The idea is cool for at least three reasons. 1) Sex sells. 2) The message is funny and ironic. 3) Everybody got a bad experience in some crappy hotel.
I think this is a good example of a viral marketing campaign. In fact, the advertisement exactly captures the reasons why everybody will be likely to share this video with his friends, coworkers, etc....
The subject matter of the video (dirty stories in hotel rooms) is universal. It catches everybody's curiosity. Needless to say, the outfit of the actress is an essential component of the message itself.
The tone of the advertising is clever and ironic. Just after 10 seconds you'll find out that "dirty" is used in its literal meaning, out of any metaphor and regardless of the nuances suggested by the dramatic look of the actress.
And eventually, the punch line/call to action: check the list and send us your experience about dirty hotels. Well, I am sure that anybody who recently had a bad experience will be happy to be vocal about his complaints.
Therefore, if many people are following the suggestion, this collection of complaints is more than entertaining: it is useful information.
Perhaps, this is a good example of conversational marketing. I find this is gonna be an interesting evolution of the traditional viral campaigns. I believe that the main feature of this marketing strategy is to get the users to contribute directly to the message, acting as a "collective" testimonial. I am sure we will have to speak again about conversational marketing...

TOS, in Beta

2009-03-02T12:23:00.000-08:00

These last few weeks have been intense. Among the others, I've been crafting the Terms Of Use and the Privacy Policies of Ukindi.com. Of course I started looking at other websites' TOS and PP, as a I needed a good comparable. Not so much to use the actual language (which BTW is not copyrightable, as legal language...) but mostly to understand about best practices and market trends... Of course, I chose the best moment to take over this task - the following day I finished my first draft, Facebook took down its TOS... Now they say it is because FB is a democratic SNS. I suppose it is sort of a revolution -- when did people start actually reading the TOS?

Anyway, I am preparing a second draft... and I start thinking that I will never be actually ready with a final, solid, definitive version of the TOS. Both the features of the websites and the users' interaction will be constantly changing, and envisioning a thorough regulatory framework is not easy.
Sometime I wish it would be possible to have legal conditions in BETA... which is basically what the following language is meant to be: "We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete portions of these Terms of Use at any time without further notice, provided that the Company will post the changes to these Terms of Use on this page and will indicate at the top of this page the date these terms were last revised. Your continued use of the Site after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms of Use."

33 VIP Twitter Accounts Hacked

2009-01-07T07:02:00.000-08:00

Some weeks ago I got an account on Twitter.com - it's just another way to give-up my privacy, of course... but at least it is a fun way to do it - I told to myself - because you decide exactly the personal info you are giving up. Yesterday, I had to reconsider when I read on Twitter's blog that Obama's and Britney Spears' accounts have been hacked.
Somebody with an extraordinary sense of humor was twittering impersonating the legitimate owners of the hacked accounts... Sometimes, the twitter posts were so strange and non-sense to look absolutely real!

Tag-Lines in a Democratic Internet

2008-12-09T21:37:00.000-08:00

Talking about marketing and brand identity, the debate of these days has been the following: what is the role of tag-lines in web 2.0. The issue is more than philosophical -- it is ontological... If we accept the concept that web 2.0 designates a participative community, where users define the tone, the content and the nature of the community, then we should reject the idea of having a tag-line to drive the community towards any preconceived end. This is the underlying idea of an authentic democratic community, where labels and tag-lines are disturbing the purity of the natural identity. Indeed, the community identity is never defined and continuously evolving, wherever the users are willing to take it.
Twitter does not have a tagline, nor does Digg, Blogger, Technorati, Craigslist (if you consider it a web 2.0) et many others.
On the other hand, some web 2.0 services have built their identities leveraging tag-lines and often changing many overtime.
Facebook is a good example - here is its tag-line history:
“Keep up with friends and family,” “Share photos and videos,” “Control privacy online,” and “Reconnect with old classmates.” Now Facebook has a simple message to entice you to sign up: “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.”
Is Facebook managing its tag-line reactively or proactively? In other words, is Facebook reacting to the users' behavior, so to hone the potential of its brand - or - on the contrary, has Facebook elected to pursue a specific marketing strategy, irrespective to its users?
I understand that, once you have reached the dimension of Facebook, such question become a chicken and egg question... However, I am keen to believe that the importance of auto-determination of an online community is expected to impact the use of tag-lines (or - at least - the evolution of the same).
Some other examples - Youtube "Broadcast Yourself", and Myspace "a place for friends".
Now, empirical evidence shows that only a minor percentage of Youtube users is actually uploading videos representing themselves, while the majority of the users is just "watching-someone-else." Most of the users would rather mirror themselves in a tag-line such as: "find-here-the-TVshows-of-the-80s-you-used-to-love-so-much," or also "show-your-friend-a funny-video"... Of course, these are not quite the actual lines to have under a logo... but I mean the content-message of these tag-lines is closer to the community than "broadcast yourself", even though I concede this last one sounds very nice...
Now, I believe you are ready to try this exercise on your own, with Myspace "a place for friends". (Friends? Sure...)
If you are curious to read more tag-lines click here.

Patents and R&D Personnel: Not Always a Direct Correlation in Europe

2008-12-05T01:58:00.000-08:00

Past November the 27th, Eurostat published a research concerning the relationship between patent activity and R&D personnel (find it HERE ) . The main question raised in such research is the following: does a higher innovation input in form of more personnel lead to a higher innovation output in terms of patents?

Although many Member States fit the correlation, the relationship between patents and R&D personnel does not appear to be straightforward in all of them. This analysis reveals a number of interesting differences between the structure of research and technological industry countries. Of course, the research does non include all kind of IP protection likely to be associated with technological innovation. Trade secrets or copyright could be associated with relevant and valuable innovation which would go undetected in this research. Besides, Eurostat considers only EPO patent applications in drawing the comparison among the multiple EU member States.

However, if we accept the research methodology, the data provided offer some insights regarding the "ROI" of technological businesses located in different EU countries. In fact, the figures are presented in break-down according to what sector the R&D personnel belongs, namely Business Enterprise, Government, Higher Education and Private Non-Profit Sector. Some surprising conclusion could be drawn, if you are looking for the best venue for a tech company... Just a quote: "In 2005 the Italian industry employed about 600 000 people more than the French, but the value added of the non-financial economy in France was about EUR 167 bn higher than in Italy. Whereas in France the shares of R&D personnel and expenditure were nearly three times higher than in Italy, patent activity in 2004 was slightly higher in Italy than in France."

In other words: French spend more to invent less. Italians monetize less their inventions.

Namestorming - UPDATED

2008-10-29T10:48:00.000-07:00

We eventually picked the name for our service. The process was lengthy and articulated, involving market research, TM clearance, multi-cultural tests, etc. etc. Anyway - I'll "give you the baby without the pain of the birth": UKINDI - As soon as possible I will uncover the beautiful story of this name...
____________
After incorporating the company, and before branding the product, it was critical to have some non-biased feedbacks on the name of the service.
Well, some of this feedbacks were not so excited about our name, NexTongue... Hence we are running a last, final, ultimate and definitive round of name-storming.
We posted our query to a community of creative people, and will grant a reward to the best three names. If you have a chance, please VOTE VOTE VOTE , or post your proposed name and try to win the reward ---- along with our gratitude - you name what's more important :-).

Super Powers For the New Officer of Copyright Enforcement

2008-10-16T00:24:00.000-07:00

On October 13, 2008, the former "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act" was passed into law under a new name: “The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act ”. Such Act aims to consolidate federal efforts to combat copyright infringement under the White House’s direction. In particular, The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act establishes within the executive branch the position of intellectual property enforcement coordinator (IPEC), who will be appointed by the President and will report directly to the President and the Congress regarding domestic and international intellectual property enforcement programs. If you have chance to read through the Act, take a note of the number of tasks the IPEC will perform... I suppose this is why the IPEC is already known as the Copyright Tzar .

KIDS Act Passed Into Law

2008-10-14T22:10:00.000-07:00

The Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008 is now law. The KIDS Act provides for an information exchange between the Attorney General and the social networking sites, in order to prevent known sexual predators from accessing such websites. In particular, Attorney General shall establish and maintain a secure system that permits social networking websites to compare the information contained in the National Sex Offender Registry with the Internet identifiers of users of the social networking websites. The new law has been promptly embraced by Facebook.

Europe Aims to Lead the Transition to Web 3.0

2008-10-03T02:42:00.000-07:00

Somebody may argue that the Internet is a living creature. In fact, instead of following a linear pattern like other sciences and technologies, the rhythm of its evolution progresses in terms of generations.

In the beginning there was the Web (nobody ever called it Web 1.0...) and, if you
are nostalgic about it, you may want to travel in the past and check a 2001 vintage "Google!" search . The exclamation mark was a must-have-it, during the age of Web 1.0.

Then Youtube, Twitter and Facebook took over and here you go with the second generation: the Web 2.0 - the most (ab)used expression to describe the articulated variety of internet services involving users' active participation. But this is history, already.

In fact, despite the eggheads cannot even agree on its precise definition, the Web 3.0 is a reality.
Moreover, such concept of Web 3.0 has already been embraced by the European Commission , which defined it as the Internet of Things, taking place through wireless interaction between machines, vehicles, appliances, sensors and many other devices. "Web 3.0 means seamless 'anytime, anywhere' business, entertainment and social networking over fast reliable and secure networks," said Viviane Reding, Commissioner for Information Society and Media. "It means the end of the divide between mobile and fixed lines. It signals a tenfold quantum leap in the scale of the digital universe by 2015. Europe has the know-how and the network capacity to lead this transformation. We must make sure that Web 3.0 is made and used in Europe."
I personally appreciate and welcome this attitude and look forward to seeing Europe leading the Web 3.0 revolution. However, if you actually read the Communication , you may notice that the challenges for the implementation of a fully integrated network deeply involve the European local authorities, the EU legislation and - last but not least - significant investments in infrastructures. Hopefully, the European bureaucracy will be able to keep pace with the Web re-generation cycle because, just in case you nobody told you, there are already more the a hundred thousand results for the Web 4.0.

USA Ratifies the Singapore Treaty

2008-10-02T02:19:00.001-07:00

The United States of America on October 1, 2008 ratified the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks.

The Singapore Treaty deals mainly with procedural aspects of trademark registration and licensing and introduces greater flexibilities and efficiencies into the delivery of trademark registration services. By eliminating red tape, enabling trademark authorities to take advantage of modern communications technologies, and further simplifying and standardizing trademark office procedures, the Treaty promises to reduce transaction costs for brand owners.

The Treaty explicitly recognizes that trademarks are no longer limited to two dimensional labels on products and specifically mentions new types of marks such as hologram marks, and non-visible signs, such as sound or taste marks.

The Treaty also establishes common rules for the recording, amendment and cancellation of trademark licenses. The Treaty also introduces new mandatory relief measures for trademark office procedures in order to alleviate procedural mistakes by trademark applicants, notably, missed time limits, which, if not remedied, could be detrimental to trademark rights. WIPO Press Room

The Strange Case of Dr. User and Mr. Ads

2008-09-26T21:59:00.000-07:00

MySpace just came up with a brilliant idea (IMHO): a new advertising platform to "Promote You". Check it here.
Given the quasi-monopolistic situation of the web-advertisement market, it was key to establish direct relationships with advertisers, to get better returns for the huge inventory held with MySpace.
In fact, this is quite common for most of the big Internet services, which have an in-house department of ads sales, in order to fight Google position as main ads broker.
The original strategy undertaken by MySpace is to sign-up its own users as advertisers. In this way, MySpace is creating new ads demand, while granting very targeted service to its users/advertisers.
Although in theory everybody, including businesses, could place his ads on MySpace, because of the demographic of MySpace's users, it is more likely that the most active advertisers will be just the most engaged users. After all, we know that these users are artists, musicians who are already promoting themselves on MySpace. Now they might enjoy a more powerful tool to do so, and guess what, they will be paying for that.
I think this strategy may represent a partial solution to the shrinking of ads revenue coming from traditional advertisers, namely off-line business. Not to mention that having a relevant presence in the ads brokering market can surely be beneficial for such a concentrated market.

NexTongue.com - Best of the lot

2008-09-25T08:02:00.000-07:00

The past few days have been pretty hectic. Working on the incorporation, the user interface, the focus groups, the ads and their respective "screen real estate"...

However we hit a very important milestone: we register the domain name for our website. Of course, it is a temporary solution - but in case nothing better pops-up, it's going to become permanent. Just like everything else in life...
The domain name we chose is: nextongue.com
I look forward to receiving some feedback on it.

P.S. do not bother checking: noting has been published at that URL.

WIPO Reports Increased Internationalization of Patent Filings

2008-09-12T13:09:00.000-07:00

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recently published World Patent Report 2008. The report, based on 2006 figures, shows that patents granted worldwide increased by 18%, with 727,000 patents granted in 2006 alone. According to these statistics, the total number of patents in force worldwide at the end of 2006 was approximately 6.1 million.

The Report also shows that North East Asian countries (mainly China and the Republic of Korea) and the United States of America led the overall growth in worldwide filing of patent applications. According to the Director General of WIPO, Dr. Kamil Idris "this reflects a consolidation of earlier trends which demonstrate a marked shift in innovation hubs around the world.”

The increased internationalization of patent activity is demonstrated - according the Report - by the growth in international filings through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the multilateral agreement administered by WIPO which provides a simplified method for international patent filing. The number of international patent application submitted via the PCT in 2007 is estimated to be 158,400, representing a 5.9% increase over the previous year.

The statistics, however, confirm a certain concentration of the innovative activity, since the Report pointed out to a growing tendency for traditional applicants to file their applications in multiple countries. In fact, the USA keeps being by far the largest user of the PCT system. In 2006, 33.6% of all PCT filings originated from the USA, almost twice that of the next largest user, Japan, which accounted for 17.5% of all PCT filings.

User Interface - Join Our Focus Group!

2008-09-05T17:06:00.000-07:00

In case you want to complain about the upcoming "New Facebook", that's exactly what I'd love to hear from you.
Designing a useful, enjoyable and accessible User Interface (UI) is a crucial step for every web-service. The UI represents more than the look and feel of a website. A good UI captures the website's utility as a tool to perform specific tasks.
Thus, if a UI is not functional, no matters how sophisticated is the technological back-end, the web-service becomes virtually useless.

We do not want to take this risk - here is why we need your help!

Next week, Ira and I will organize a focus group to analyze the user behavior, with respect to some of our competitors' websites. If you are interested in joining the experiment, please send me a message, and I will sign you up.
The nature of the experiment requires to gather a focus group of 4-6 people, who will meet in the same physical location. Therefore, we plan to have a meeting in the Stanford area.

After trying different web-sites, we will start an open discussion and all participants will be asked to comment individually on certain specific web-features or designs.
I promise you will enjoy it.

Besides, it is going to be an opportunity to discuss about web design, meeting interesting people and the event includes a social side: some food and drinks all together.

We look forward to having you in our first UI focus group!

TV vs. Web

2008-09-05T12:20:00.000-07:00

We all know that: the Web is much better than the TV. Have a look at this video to find out why...

Yahoo! (s)Mash(ed)

2008-08-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! announced they are going to shut down Mash, the social networking site started less than one year ago. Yesterday, Yahoo! sent a message to Mash’s users warning them to save all profile information somewhere else, since after September 29 Mash won’t be there anymore: “we hope you had fun with it” and sayonara to everybody!

Mash is (or was…) a nicely designed SNS, it just got out there too late. In fact, there is no more room for general/all-purposes SNSs. Market’s needs have been saturated by Facebook (which is BTW celebrating its 100 Million users).

On Facebook, you can search and find most of the people you are in touch with… and eventually you keep more easily in touch with people who use it…

If you are wondering when was last time you e-mailed your old friend who is not on FB, the answer is: longer than others who are on FB: this just is one of the indirect effects of the Network Effect).

However, more and more professionals, teenagers and families keep in touch with Facebook. A law firm is also recruiting on Facebook.
General SNSs (i.e. Facebook) have recently turned into an enriched version of a phonebook, and people use them just like one.

The value of a phonebook is inherently related to its completeness and distribution (AKA the Network Effect). In the SNSs case, both completeness and distribution rely on users activity, which is costly. O.k., filling user’s profile, adding friends and uploading pictures may be fun too, but doing it multiple times may become an hassle. Anyway, swinging from a SNS to another is time consuming and there isn’t really reason to do it.

On the other hand, some SNSs are pursuing another strategy to gain a spot in the market, namely specialization. Facebook’s internal networks or groups are not specific enough to satisfy users' needs. Sometimes, the features of a SNS just don’t match a specific purpose or taste of its users.

Thus, people who share a common interest, or come from a certain location tend to aggregate around a specialized SNS. There are plenty of examples.

MySpace (which is still growing) is gradually specializing in music. Its users share an interest in famous as well as emergent bands’ productions. Thus, the features available for users’ profile customization match this purpose. Flickr is another good example: it is more than a photo sharing, is an active community of photographers. Thus, the quality/dimension of the pictures you can up/download is way superior to other SNSs. Orkut, of the Google family, is well established in a few countries (e.g. Brazil), where it is much bigger than Facebook. In fact, Orkut benefited of FB’s initial language deficiency and enjoyed a first comer advantage.

Therefore, SNSs new trends will be driven by the ability to interpret the concept of a hub, where people may find features and design able to satisfy an unexploited aggregating element. And of course, a huge amount of luck…

SMILE, not SCRATCH (When You Pick a Domain Name)

2008-08-27T11:51:00.000-07:00

It would be great if you’d enter our naming competition. We’re currently calling our online language exchange service Lingolink; unfortunately, the lingolink.com domain is already taken and the owner is not willing to sell it to us.

Once the service is up and running the winner of the "competition" will receive a special mention on this blog!!! (Exciting, isn't it?!) To enter, by Friday, Sept 5, please send me your top five names. Feel free to include your friends, co-workers and family members as well. Make it a fun, brainstorming event :o)

Through the name of the service we want to communicate the following characteristics:

We connect people from around the world through language exchange.

We’re an on-line market for the buying and selling of language services.

We’re the go to place where people have fun and make friends from around the world.

On our site users feel that we are using technology for learning unlike anyone else. This is the best way to practice speaking a language.

Users say “aha” after using the service. “I finally understand what that word means.”

We’ll most likely pick the name that meets the following criteria:

Needs to possess these qualities

Simple –- one easy-to-understand concept

Meaningful –- customer instantly “get it”

Imagery –- visually evocative, creates a mental picture

Legs –- carries the brand, lends itself to wordplay

Emotional –- empowers, entertains, engages, enlightens

Deal-breakers

Spelling-challenged — you have to tell people how to spell it

Copycat – similar to competitor’s names

Random – disconnected from the brand

Annoying – hidden meaning, forced

Tame – flat, uninspired, boring, non-emotional

Curse of knowledge – only insiders get it

Hard-to-pronounce – not obvious, relies on punctuation

I can't wait to receive your suggestions!

PS. This is my avatar...

Series A Financing Sample Library

2008-08-25T00:59:00.000-07:00

If you are working on a start-up, or you are a corporate lawyer, or just in case you are looking forward to collecting something valuable for your legal library, you cannot miss this.
Y Combinator and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati made available an entire set of documents created to use when raising angel rounds.
Y-C and WSGR disclaim: "While they may not be suitable for all situations, the goal was to make the terms fairly neutral. So while we would of course advise both parties using these documents to have their lawyers look at them, they provide a starting point that we hope can be used in many situations without too many modifications.
Needless to say, neither YC nor WSGR assumes any responsibility for any consequence of using these documents."
Find all the documents HERE!

Find me on Technocrati

2008-08-24T03:59:00.000-07:00

I am getting a Technocrati account...

I am waiting for the spider to register my blog.

Here is my Technorati Profile.

The Pirate Bay case - UPDATE

2008-08-23T19:36:00.000-07:00

The URL www.thepiratebay.org, accessed from the Italian ISPs, is not re-directing any more to the Pro-Music's web site. The reverse DNS now says "localhost"...

Meanwhile, an Italian association (ALCEI) brought the issue before the Privacy Authority. We'll hear about the Pirate Bay again... and perhaps it will be possible to understand who (and on what legal basis) gave such order to redirect the traffic (since the Court did not).

Open Source and Open Licenses as Copyright's Offsprings

2008-08-22T11:35:00.000-07:00

Open Source and open licenses may appear as copyright's worst enemies. Ironically, in order to ensure free access to certain content it is necessary to enforce copyright.

The idea is simple as well as counterintuitive: if you want to grant public and free access to a work of authorship, it is best if you establish that such work is protected under copyright law. In this way, you can require that further publication and derivative works may be subject to certain conditions: e.g., to be licensed under the same license, for free, with no limitation for derivative works and with credit to the original author.
Otherwise, if your creative work were to fall in the public domain, anybody could claim a proprietary right on derivative works.

In a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit (Jacobsen v. Katzer and Kamind Associate, Inc.), the Court addressed - among the others - an interesting issue, namely whether it is possible to enforce an open license, given the (alleged) lack of economic interest by the copyright holder.
Eventually, the Court acknowledged that the conditions i) to give credit to the author and ii) to display the copyright notice, represent a sufficient economic interest to uphold a public license. In fact, giving credit to the author -in the case of an open license- is not merely a moral right, it rather encompasses an inherent benefit for the author.
In particular, the Court defined such benefit as follows:

"The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce. Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the copyright holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others' knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases."

I am not absolutely sure that such statement is truly catching the spirit of the Open Source project. However, it looks like a robust argument and a preeminent endorsement of open licenses. Somehow a windfall.

Net Neutrality - Guess the Quote!

2008-08-19T22:29:00.000-07:00

While watching Lessig's last presentation, I thought - hey this is quite a crisp definition of Net Neutrality: "NN guarantees access to content and applications that people want to choose, not the content and the applications that network providers choose for them." Indeed, "neutrality is the spirit of the Internet" - so that, everybody is free to access any web site, at anytime from anywhere.

So, from another perspective -what's the risk of a non-neutral network?

The answer is in the following quote, and I bet you'd never guess who said that:

"Would you be OK with the post office opening your mail, deciding they didn’t want to bother delivering it, and hiding that fact by sending it back to you stamped “address unknown – return to sender”? Or if they opened letters mailed to you, decided that because the mail truck is full sometimes, letters to you could wait, and then hid both that they read your letters and delayed them?"

Check your guess here!

Startup School

2008-08-19T12:14:00.000-07:00

I just found a resourceful site... It is an "oldie", I suppose - given the time-flow in this field. However, I think it is worth giving a glimpse to this conference.

La Baia e il Tubo (UPDATED)

2008-08-16T13:20:00.000-07:00

Italy and some Italian corporation have recently started a war (in the courtroom, of course) against two of the most representative Internet players - the Pirate Bay and Youtube. The two cases have been harshly criticized in the blogosphere as an assault to freedom of expression and an attempt to weaken the increasing importance of the Internet as a powerful alternative to mainstream media and government propaganda.

My personal opinion: although I can envision the risk of a drift towards a stricter policing regime, the immediate reason of such lawsuits is well grounded on a rather prosaic level: money (or should I say the lack of...).

The old media tycoons are suffering significant revenue losses both from the advertising and the copyright royalties.

Direct sales of hard copies of copyrighted materials (software, movies and music of course) are suffering a perennial downturn. Although the majors are cutting their losses, through on-line distribution, the hostilities against file-sharing have not ceased at all.

On the other hand, the market for on-line advertising has become more and more relevant (Google is constantly increasing its ads revenues), in spite of the traditional advertisement on radio, television and newspapers, which is progressively loosing its share. In fact, the money spent by advertisers tends to be steady and the overall advertising market is not really growing. Thus, it is the same old pie, except that slices are shared differently.

However, both in the Mediaset v. Youtube and in the Pirate Bay case, the problem is not limited to a friction among opposing commercial interests. The situation is way more complicated because Italy and its government interests are complicated.

In Mediaset, it is enough to say that the plaintiff is -somehow- the Italian prime minister, Berlusconi. There is no need to explain his interest in communication and public opinion. Moreover, in Italy some of Berlusconi's main opponents are leveraging the Internet and Youtube to drive their political activities.

As The Pirate Bay is concerned, there are too many things to say.

Access to the Pirate Bay web site has been blocked from Italy and do you know where is the URL re-directing? To a website hosted in England and owned by Pro-Music, namely the majors' association who is "behind" the lawsuits.

This is not quite all: when accessing the Pirate Bay site from Italy, Pro-Music is able to collect information about every user and his cookies-- using such cookies it is possible to access the user's profile in the Pirate Bay database, perhaps giving a look to what files such user recently downloaded, uploaded or searched.

This is enough evidence to bring a strong case in court, of course if we assume it was acquired lawfully.

P.S.

I found a video-demonstration of how it is possible to hack Th Pirate Bay users' identity. Click here!

*UPDATE*

The Italian URL www.thepiratebay.org is not re-directing any more to the Pro-Music web site. The reverse DNS now says "localhost"...

Meanwhile some Italian associations brought the issue before the Privacy Authority. We'll hear about the Pirate Bay again...

WHO IS HIDING IN THE BAY?

Video by www.byoblu.com

Pick a Name!

2008-08-13T04:40:00.000-07:00

In these days I am going to pick a name for my start-up. It is a language learning service, but I'd prefer some name unrelated to the nature of the service.

My concern is to find something which is short, sexy, easy to spell and to remember. Besides, since it would be an international service, I'd like to avoid anything that could sound awkward or offensive in other languages... like cin cin, which is nice if you are in Italy, not so much in Japan... or cozza, a shellfish in Italy, not edible in Germany.

I look fwd to hearing what you'd pick!

Write your suggestion here!
P.S.

My new favicon.