TechAlliance has announced the events for IT Week. Last Year’s events were a great success – enough so that TechAlliance has to have one of the events in a larger venue this year.

The week has several events that will be of interest to those in the tech sector, and non-tech businesses.

Events include a town hall forum on winning the IT talent war, a seminar on search engine optimization, and a community mixer. The cost to attend these is minimal – some even free to TechAlliance members.

(Disclosure: I am a member of the TechAlliance IT advisory council)

Take a look at the IT Week calendar

Check out the details and sign up for events on the TechAlliance website

For the London Free Press – February 25, 2008

Read this on Canoe

If you’ve never heard of domain tasting, you’re not alone. To many looking to obtain Internet domain names, however, it’s a serious problem that is finally being addressed.

If you sign up for a new domain name, you are given a five-day grace period. Within this grace period you can cancel the domain name at no cost. This is meant to handle situations where domain name purchasers made a mistake, such as a spelling error.

This grace period has been exploited by people acquiring domain names in bulk. Through the use of software that automatically acquires domain names it is possible to test out large numbers of domain names to determine which ones have the potential to be profitable.

During the five-day grace period, click-through ads are placed on the temporarily acquired domains. If the ads generate sufficient revenue they may keep the domain names. This often occurs if the name is close to a real name, or is a logical guess at a web address. For the vast majority that have no immediate value, the domain names will be canceled within the five day grace period at no cost.

In other cases, the domain name will be allowed to lapse after five days and then be reacquired for an indefinite number of five-day periods. This practice of continually re-registering is known as kiting.

The sheer scale on which domain tasting can occur (as many as 90 per cent of new registrations can be attributed to domain tasting) makes it a problem largely due to its interference with those who want to get legitimate domain names for useful purposes.

After years of complaints, it seems that both Google and ICANN have decided to do something about the practice.

Google responded first by targeting domain tasters’ main source of revenue — advertisements placed on the temporarily registered domain names. Google recently announced it will not allow any Google AdSense ads to appear on domains that are being kited. AdSense allows domain registrants to generate web pages full of ads where no website content yet exists.

Google’s actions will undoubtedly have some impact. In the short term, domain tasters will be able to move to other platforms, unless they follow Google’s example. Some find Google’s decision to restrict the use of AdSense by domain tasters somewhat surprising, as they make money from the practice.

ICANN has looked at several potential methods of discouraging the practice of domain tasting. ICANN recently embraced the option of effectively deleting the grace period. This was accomplished by withdrawing ICANN’s waiver of ICANN’s non-refundable transaction fee to the deletion of names within the grace period.

While the fee is only 20 cents per registration, the scale of registrations should make this approach effective. In January, for example, 47,824,131 domain names were deleted. Ninety-five per cent of these deletes were by just 10 registrars. At $0.20 each, this would have cost over $9 million, significantly curtailing any chances for profit.

After years of complaints, it seems the growing problem of domain tasting may finally be solved.

Mike Masnick of Techdirt has a post worth reading for anyone interested in copyright issues. The entertainment industry always equates file sharing with the theft of physical property, and takes the position that copies not explicitly authorized by the creator is theft. That position does not help their credibility.

That analysis doesn’t really fit, because the owner of the original still has the original. That is an issue that civil and criminal courts have struggled with over time.

Mike has some good examples showing that Just because you acquire something of value for free (and without the original seller’s permission) it doesn’t automatically make it “theft.”

He also points out the fundamental difference is that for physical goods, economic models are based on scarcity – ie I can give you or sell you my toaster – but then I don’t have one any more. For intellectual or digital property, scarcity is not an issue – the supply can be essentially infinite with no extra cost.

One of the fundamental issues of Canadian copyright reform is who gets to decide what copies can be made. In other words, in what circumstances should we be able to make copies of intangible items without the permission of its creator.

Read the Techdirt post

While I do have some sympathy for the IOC’s desire to maximize TV revenue from the Olympic games, the IOC always strikes me as being about a decade behind in their rules about things like event video on Web sites, and blogging.

The IOC has just released its rules on what athletes can and can not do on their blogs. Techdirt sums it up by saying: First Rule: No Blogging Anything Interesting

Frankly, watching Olympic events is not a zero sum game. How many of us have the time or inclination to watch hours of TV every day during the Olympics? If people turn to websites or blogs to get their Olympic news or watch a winning performance in a sport they are interested in, it doesn’t have to mean that TV viewing/revenue will drop.

Read the Techdirt post for the details

For the London Free Press – February 18, 2008

Read this on Canoe

A company called QTrax recently announced it had arrangements with major labels to allow free music downloading.

The labels would make their money from ad revenue — ads the user must watch while the music downloads. The privacy catch is the label’s share of revenue is calculated at least in part by how many times the song is listened to — which means each users’ computer will send that information back to QTrax.

This privacy issue got lost in the controversy over what labels QTrax had actually signed. It seems the deals had not actually been finalized with some labels.

On the surface this may seem like an ideal solution to the perceived problem of peer-to-peer downloading. It provides a revenue source to the music industry and gives downloaders a way to support artists without directly paying for the music.

This business model requires the use of a form of Digital Rights Management to track the number of times the songs are played on each users’ system, and to report that back. If that reporting is done transparently with the knowledge of the users, and in a way that does not report back any personal information, it would not pose a privacy issue.

The federal Privacy Commissioner has stated technologies that automatically collect personal information without a person’s knowledge or consent violate the fair information principles of privacy legislation. That this invasion occurs while people are in their homes with a high expectation of privacy makes the violation all the more significant.

It is difficult to say how invasive the DRM technology used by QTrax will be in terms of privacy. On the QTrax website they promise no adware and no spyware. They make reference to collection of information but don’t provide details on what will be collected. They have not yet provided information on any privacy policy.

One certainly wouldn’t expect that by simply playing a CD on their computer they would be installing software that could monitor their computer, but this is exactly what happened with some Sony music CDs in 2005. Since then, many are wary of what kind of software is being installed whenever they acquire music.

DRM can also be used to limit how we use the material we acquire — such as to specific devices, or specific numbers of copies.

Before we acquire music — or any digital entertainment products — we should check to see what the vendor has to say about any limitations on its use, whether it contains software we might not expect, and details of information collected along the way. From a vendor standpoint, it is important to be transparent about those issues.

Michael Geist has a post about a new coalition that has written a position paper against the proposed Canadian copyright reform bill.

The list of members is impressive, including Canada’s largest cable companies, retailers, broadcasters, Internet companies, and most of the major telcos.

Seems that the number of organizations against the bill far outnumbers those that are for it.

Read Michael’s post for the details.

For the London Free Press – February 11, 2008

Read this on Canoe

In preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics, Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act came into force on Dec. 17.

The Act protects the Olympic brand. The Olympic brand is comprised of dozens of names, phrases, marks and logos related to the 2010 Winter Games. Examples include obvious examples like the word “Olympic,” the use of the official Olympic emblem, as well as less obvious examples such as Vancouver 2010, Sea to Sky Games and the Olympic rings.

The IOC and its marketing partners have placed VANOC under a legal obligation to protect against unauthorized use of the Olympic brand and ambush marketing in Canada.

Ambush marketing occurs when business uses false or unauthorized associations between its business, goods or services and the goodwill associated with the Olympics. Ambush marketing threatens the financial viability of the Olympic Games by impairing the ability of organizers to raise the necessary sponsorship and licensing funding. Essentially, organizations and corporate sponsors participating in the 2010 Vancouver Games marketing program must be confident they are investing in something not available for free.

VANOC’s brand and logo policy on its website states it will assess whether there has been an infringement of the Olympic brand through a six-part test which assesses whether the Olympic brand is:

- Used accurately without distortion or modification.

- Used in an overly promotional manner which contributed to the creation of an unauthorized business association.

- Used in a commercially neutral manner or whether it created an unauthorized business association between the Olympics and a commercial entity?

- Given undue prominence within the context of the overall initiative or storyline?

- Used visually to create an association between a business and the Olympic or Paralympic movement.

- Whether there are any other elements not contemplated in the proceeding factors that otherwise create an unauthorized association with the Olympic or Paralympic movement?

Each factor is rated between one and three and an aggregate score is generated. A score of more than indicates infringement and VANOC can take action to protect the mark, including the use of the courts.

The website also has examples of what uses would be considered acceptable or infringing.

Concerns with this legislation have been noted by critics. First, unlike normal trademarks, IOC and VANOC are not required to prove they have suffered harm under this legislation. Nor does it require the use to be confusing. This will make an injunction or an order for damages easier to obtain. It will be difficult for small businesses to challenge a corporate giant like the Olympic committee.

While the legislation provides an exemption for parody and media, it has been noted that filmmakers, musicians and artists are not exempt from compliance when they wish to reproduce their materials on a commercial scale.

It has also been noted the protection impedes free speech.

It appears corporate sponsorship, trademark law and free speech will be competing for gold at the podium.

Cnet reports that: A British travel company has paid $1.1 million for the domain name cruises.co.uk, a price that is effectively $1 million just for the letter “s” since it already owns the address cruise.co.uk.

Read the CNet article

For the London Free Press – Febrary 4, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Canada’s do-not-call list for telemarketers is to be in place by Sept. 30.

Don’t expect the phone to stop ringing at dinner time, though, because the legislation has many exceptions.

On Dec. 21, the CRTC announced the winner in the competition to operate the eagerly anticipated National Do Not Call List. Bell Canada was awarded a five-year contract.

The CRTC announced Jan. 28 it will issue a request for proposals by the end of this month to select a party to investigate DNCL complaints.

Critics have complained the bar to qualify as the operator was set so high it effectively eliminated smaller businesses from the running. This left the selection of a large telecommunications company a forgone conclusion.

The role of DNCL operator was created by the CRTC in a bid to limit its involvement in the DNCL as much as possible.

While the selection process may have its critics, it still means we are moving closer to the implementation of the DNCL, a possibility that will excite many Canadians.

Currently, there is no single do-not-call list, though individual telemarketers must keep their own lists. To avoid telemarketers, individuals must register with each one.

The DNCL will be a nationwide registry that will let consumers reduce the number of telemarketing calls they receive. Telemarketers will be prohibited from making unsolicited calls to telephone numbers on the DNCL.

Consumers will be able to register or deregister any Canadian telephone number on the DNCL. It will be possible to register online. Registration will be effective for three years, after which the number will automatically deregister and require reregistration.

There will be no charge for the consumer to register, with the costs of the list being paid from subscription fees for the list paid by telemarketers.

If, after registering, a consumer receives a call from a non-exempt organization, the consumer will have 14 days to complain, either online or by calling a toll-free number. Complaints will be investigated and penalties may be issued. Penalties may be as high as $1,500 per violation for individuals and $15,000 per violation for corporations.

There are a number of notable exceptions to the DNCL that will reduce its effectiveness.

Those exempted from the list include registered charities, political parties, those collecting information for a survey, solicitors of subscriptions for general-circulation newspapers and businesses with an existing business relationship with the consumer.

The question may fairly be asked, “Who does that leave?”

Telemarketers are not entirely happy with the DNCL. Besides limiting the ability of many businesses to telemarket, telemarketers have argued the fee requirements place an unfair burden on Canadian businesses.

For those who’ve waited a long time for a respite from telemarketers, the DNCL implementation in September may be a disappointment. For those who will pay for it, its implementation will be little more than a new burden.

Perhaps the real winners may be the CRTC, which is now relieved of the matter, and the service providers who can look forward to a new source of revenue.

Privacy is often diminished or downplayed when people are lead to believe that privacy and security cannot exist together. Privacy concerns are often portrayed as anti law and order, or pro-criminal/terrorist.

The reality is that we do not have to give up privacy to get security. Many security measures that offend privacy and annoy or inconvenience the vast majority of normal law abiding people don’t really add to security.

Techdirt and the Canadian Privacy Comissioner both have recent posts talking about this. Each refers to an article by security consultant Bruce Schneier that appeared at Wired.com.

For example, he refers to most of the airport security methods as “security theatre and a waste of effort”.

These articles are worth a read.

Privacy Commissioner: In this zero-sum game, we’re all losers

Techdirt: If You’re Watching Everyone, You’re Watching No One

Wired: What Our Top Spy Doesn’t Get: Security and Privacy Aren’t Opposites