Hot off the erm… screen: Another Facebook note concerning their change in the Terms of Service: they’re soliciting user input on how to shape it. So go ahead, all 175 million Facebook users. Flood Facebook central with your grocery list of demands, desires and dreams. That’ll work.

Today we announced new opportunities for users to play a meaningful role in determining the policies governing our site. We released the first proposals subject to these procedures – The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes. We’ve posted the documents in separate groups and invite you to offer comments and suggestions. For more information and links to the two groups, check out the Facebook Blog.

On the other hand, Facebook could just lead by crafting a reasonable and simple-to-understand ToS that guarantees user ownership of user content, and that grants Facebook a license to provide the Facebook service for a period of time determined by the length of the user’s membership and desire to keep user content up and available. This would alleviate the need for a public hug, and forego the onslaught of millions of divergent opinions.

Continued

Just a few months ago, an International Trademark Association (INTA) panel described ICANN’s gTLD policy as a “pending trainwreck” driven by greed and ambition. One member even discussed organizational ambitions for ICANN to relocate to Switzerland and build a substantial headquarters.

The Non-Profit with Better-than-Commercial Pay
It seems the trademark experts got it right.  The non-profit ICANN’s annual report in fact commits the organization to pay its staff above the average salary for similar sized for-profit companies.  It also builds in a salary incentive for increasing ICANN’s size, which would raise the full organization’s pay scale.

And Millions to Leverage in the Market
ICANN gets a 20 cent fee from every domain name issued. Imagine finding that it had built up 25 million dollars in reserves. Rather than reducing its fees, the ICANN board approved leveraging the funds, which represented over a year’s operating expenses in the market. ICANN’s public dashboard shows “negative interest” of $4.6 million for last year, representing its market losses. You can read more about this on Circle ID.

Reality Check
It would be unthinkable for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the group which establishes the protocols that make the Internet work, to set itself up as a company paying its staff better than commercial rates, or nurturing huge cash reserves. That’s just not part of that culture.

The IETF understands that it’s a governance body supported by broad consensus and donated expertise. ICANN has become a self-perpetuating and self-promoting organization; it needs to be fixed.

Who Will Fix ICANN?
Attendees at its meeting next week in Mexico City (March 1-6) can start the process (note the special Mexico ICANN meeting domain: http://mex.icann.org)

Revising the organization’s over-reaching gTLD policy should be only the starting point for reform. ICANN needs to return to being a governance body, not an aspiring enterprise.

Now that would be change we could believe in.

It’s bad enough that the UK seems hell-bent on placing surveillance cameras on every street corner, despite the fact that, according to a senior police official at Scotland Yard, they are an “utter fiasco.” But when the Orwellian UK government then mandates — secretly — that cameras spy on people in liquor stores and pubs, they have crossed the line.

From the Daily Mail:

Big Brother CCTV cameras are to be fitted inside shops and supermarkets on the orders of the state to keep track on anybody buying alcohol.

A law is being quietly pushed through Parliament giving councils the power to order licensed premises to fit the surveillance cameras. Pubs will also be covered.

The footage of people innocently buying a bottle of wine in a shop or a pint of beer in a bar must be stored for at least 60 days, and be handed over to the police on demand.

Such pretexts are designed solely to take power. The next excuse will be to put cameras in libraries and bookstores in order to ‘”prevent minors from being exposed to inappropriate materials.” The real effect will be to frighten people and coerce their choices.  More from the Daily Mail:

Ministers have also been restricting the public’s right to ‘watch the watchers’.

Earlier this week, a law came into force which carries a maximum ten-year jail term for anybody taking a picture of a police officer if it is ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

Over the past dozen years in the UK, the Labour government has increasingly tightened its grip on the British people, rapidly eroding their civil liberties. There was a time when “liberal” meant “free” or “less restricted.” Like in the US, that time has past. Make no mistake: this isn’t about Left vs. Right, nor Liberal vs. Conservative anymore. It’s about totalitarianism, and it’s in the land of Parliamentary government and the Magna Carta.

On March 4 (12:30 Eastern, 9:30 Pacific) you can participate in a free live webinar with the Kellogg Business School’s James Conley.

Kellogg is arguably America’s top marketing school, and Conley is a clinical professor in technology who speaks and writes about intellectual property law and marketing.

You may recall Conley’s Wall Street Journal article about the strategic importance of trade dress this May, after Apple trademarked the three-dimensional shape of the iPod.

As he noted several years ago in the magazine of the Industrial Designers Society of America:

If used properly, marks, unlike patents or copyrights, never expire. Registered design elements that serve as a brand foundation are therefore indefinite forms of competitive advantage.

What Is Trade Dress?
Trade dress is the totality of elements in which a product is packaged or presented. Think of Toblerone’s triangular package and shape, Coke’s distinctive bottle, or Tiffany’s distinctive gift packaging. Protectable characteristics can include the three-dimensional shape, graphic design, color, or even smell.

But to be considered trade dress, the attributes must:

Continued

The Governor of the State of New York wants to address their $15 billion deficit by taxing, well, almost everything. Among the specifics is the taxing of digital downloads. The so-called “iPod Tax” would be 4 percent on all music and video downloads.

For years, we’ve been waiting for the axe to drop on e-commerce by the issuance of taxes on internet-based sales. The arguments against it (and there are many, as there should be) include complexity (which state charges what rate for what type of item, and if states, why not counties and cities?), the cost to revamp shopping cart software and accounting practices, and the obvious fact that government really doesn’t need to tax everything.

What is interesting about this specific tax proposal is that it will also include pornography. Opponents of the tax argue that taxing such a thing legitimizes it. The government would profit from porn.

This is not new. Sin taxes have been around for a very long time (ask a smoker). Inevitably, the argument for a sin tax is the very thing that ultimately dooms it: diminishing returns due to reduced use of the product or service. The state gets hooked on the juice from it, then when it falls off, the tax rate increases. This then accelerates the drop-off in use, and there we go down the spiral. The people who adopt such tax policies aren’t very bright. But of course, you can pass any tax as long as it’s For The Children.

With every state in some measure of financial turmoil, any hope of keeping the tax hounds off the net will likely fail, and soon. What remains to be seen is how complex and unwieldy the new system of internet taxation will be, and just how far states will go to establish “nexus.” Can you really do business in a state you’ve never entered, and what would this mean for international jurisdictions?

Have you heard of blended search? (That’s “search,” not “scotch.”) It’s when a search engine presents your search results from more than just webpages. It can include things like images, books, news and video.

In 2007, Google released Universal Search, their flavor of blended search. On top of Google’s search engine results page, you’ll see categories of results that allow you to filter for things like images, news, shopping, etc.  However, what comes up initially below the paid listings is the highest-ranked results from within in those categories. So, instead of just webpages, the organic listings (aka: non-paid) contain groupings of results within pertinent categories.

Since organic search efforts have been focused on webpages, you can imagine how blended search is going to shake up the field of SEO. Instead of one category of search engine results, you now have multiple categories to contend with.

Continued

The folks over at Facebook seem overwhelmed by the response they have received since Sunday, when the website The Consumerist posted an article about a change in Facebook’s Terms of Service.

About-Face (Book)
Notice of their reversal was available on their service today:

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

In an article in today’s New York Times, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg seemed apologetic, but does not say the matter is closed.

In a Facebook posting on Wednesday, Mr. Zuckerberg said: “A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

The posting said the decision to return to previous terms was “the right thing for now.”

Mr. Zuckerberg added that Facebook’s next revision of terms would reflect “a new approach” and would be “a substantial revision from where we are now.”

He promised Facebook users “a lot of input in crafting these terms.”

Indeed. Zuckerberg basically regrets the confusion the text has caused, but the reworked version to the ToS is only temporary.

On one hand, the policy makes sense – if a user posts pictures that become part of mix of content that dozens of others comment upon or is otherwise incorporated into other’s Facebook experience, then its removal would create gaping holes all over the place. Compound that with the ebb and flow of thousands of users leaving or joining each day, and you have swiss cheese.

Continued

In 2007, Facebook was valued by Microsoft at about $15 billion. It garners substantially less financial enthusiasm these days, at about $3-$4 billion. Not too shabby. Of course, the big question is why. Has it actually made a profit, or is this 1999 again? The valuation may very well be based upon the data Facebook contains about everyone that has ever used it. It’s a virtual gold mine of preferences, trends and connections, and Facebook has just amended its Terms of Service that gives it the right to keep all your information forever.

Previously, when a user left, all their information, including pictures, videos and writing, would evaporate. This is no longer the case; it’s too valuable, and perhaps this is the only way Facebook will ultimately make money: leeching off your personal information. It can use, sell or lease your data to anyone.

From the ToS:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.

Here’s what was removed:

Continued

Street artist Shepard Fairey used an Associated Press (AP) photograph as the basis of his famous artistic treatment of then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama. That fact is not in dispute.

The AP contacted Mr. Fairey in an attempt to secure credit and compensation. Although the AP has not started formal legal proceedings against Fairey, Fairey decided to strike first by suing the AP for infringement of Fair Use.
Continued

In what can be compared to finding the Holy Grail, the results are in for Monty Python’s efforts to encourage their legion of fans to refrain from supporting illegal uploading of their work onto the internet and buy Python DVDs. In a previous article, we described how Python was building their own YouTube channel, which will feature premium-quality versions of their sketches in order to promote their DVD sales. Their approach was simple: instead of getting angry and launching Inter-Continental Ballistic Lawyers, the guys decided to give out high-quality samples, hoping people would be as hungry as Mr. Creosote in a sweet shop for more.

Well, it worked. Frightfully well.

Continued