Today is international Data Privacy Day.

From the official website:

Data Privacy Day is an international celebration of the dignity of the individual expressed through personal information.  In this networked world, in which we are thoroughly digitized, with our identities, locations, actions, purchases, associations, movements, and histories stored as so many bits and bytes, we have to ask – who is collecting all of this – what are they doing with it  – with whom are they sharing it?  Most of all, individuals are asking ‘How can I protect my information from being misused?’  These are reasonable questions to ask – we should all want to know the answers.

Also see more info on Wikipedia.

The Canadian Privacy Commissioner says: On Data Privacy 2010 we’d like to take a moment to remind everyone that is the responsibility of both individuals and companies to make sure that personal information is safe.   

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows:

Mike Masnick of Techdirt has published a post that is a chapter he wrote for a book being presented at a conference for the International Association of Entertainment Lawyers (IAEL).

Its worth a read, not only for Mike’s thoughts on new ways for the music industry to make money, but also to consider how that business model might work for other industries. 

Here are some snippets to get a flavour:

It’s no secret that there’s a lot of concern these days about what the music industry will look like going forward — especially from those who work on the label side of the business and have been around for a bit. A variety of things have caused rapid change in the market. Competition from other forms of entertainment, such as the internet, movies and video games, have put more pressure on the industry, as consumers have been presented with significantly more options for their entertainment attention and dollars. And, of course, there’s the ever-present specter of unauthorized file sharing — or, as the industry prefers to call it (accurately or not), “piracy.”

…

However, there is another solution: stop worrying and learn to embrace the business models that are already helping musicians make plenty of money and use file sharing to their advantage, even in the absence of licensing or copyright enforcement.

In simplest terms, the model can be defined as:

Connect with Fans (CwF) + Reason to Buy (RtB) = The Business Model

Sound simple? It is, if you understand the basics — and it can be incredibly lucrative. The problem, of course, is that very few seem to fully understand how this model works. However, let’s go through some examples.

…

This is a business model that’s working now and it will work better and better in the future as more people understand the mechanisms and improve on them. Worrying about new copyright laws or new licensing schemes or new DRM or new lawsuits or new ways to shut down file sharing is counterproductive, unnecessary and dangerous. Focusing on what’s working and encouraging more of that is the way to go. It’s a model that works for musicians, works for enablers and works for fans. It is the future and we should be thrilled with what it’s producing.

For the London Free Press – January 25, 2010

Read this on Canoe

“Responsible communication” expands media freedom of expression and opens door to more frank discussion of matters of public policy

If you don’t have anything nice to say, be sure to say it in the name of public interest.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently changed defamation law with its ruling in Grant v. Torstar. The case dealt with allegations that a wealthy land developer in Northern Ontario had bypassed regular government approval procedures for building a golf course, courtesy of friends in high places.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression. But there’s a limit to what one can express.

Under defamation law, if a statement unjustifiably compromises a person’s reputation, that person can sue for damages.

In recent years, there has been concern that defamation law has resulted in media outlets suffering “libel chill.” The suggestion is the media have toned down or left out what they wished to say, for fear of being sued.

In the Grant v. Torstar decision, the Supreme Court created a new defence to defamation. This “responsible communication” defence effectively expands the freedom of expression afforded to media and opens the door to more frank discussion of matters of public policy.

To succeed, the new defence requires that the publication must be a matter of public interest, and the publisher must have been diligent in trying to verify the allegations. Factors to be considered when measuring diligence are:

• the seriousness of the allegation
• the public importance of the matter
• the urgency of the matter
• the status and reliability of the source
• whether the plaintiff’s version of the story was asked for and accurately reported
• whether including the defamatory statement was justifiable
• whether the statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth
• other relevant circumstances.

In other words, it is now possible to inaccurately report something of public interest, but have a viable defence to defamation so long as you take steps to get your facts straight at the outset.

This change is unlikely to result in a media free-for-all. In the decision, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin cautions “The protection offered by a new defence based on conduct is meaningful for both the publisher and those whose reputations are at stake. The press and others engaged in public communication on matters of public interest, like bloggers, must act carefully, having regard to the injury to reputation that a false statement can cause.”

It is noteworthy that bloggers are explicitly included in this test. Whatever uncertainty existed previously about allegations in cyberspace, the law is now clear: if you make controversial claims, you must do due diligence, however you publish them.

That’s the title of my Slaw post for today. It reads as follows:

I just listened to an IT.Can seminar where Frank Work spoke about the current privacy landscape from his perspective. Some of his thoughts:

We are awash in data that we can’t seem to turn into anything useful. For example, the data that was available on the attempted airplane bomber. Comments were made by the US government that they had intelligence about this individual. Frank’s point is that they really only had data – they were unable to turn it into intelligence.

He sees a trend for organizations to collect huge amounts of data, and try to turn it into intelligence later. That is at odds with privacy laws that require reasonable collection.

As he puts it, don’t try to drink the whole ocean – consider what you want to achieve before you start collecting.

He also believes that airport body scanners are just security theatre, and that we are surrendering privacy for no real gain. We seem to be in a position where we wrongly welcome more surveillance regardless of whether it is reasonable or relevant to the issue.

He also sees a problem with PET, or privacy enhancing technologies. PET refers to using technology to make otherwise invasive things less invasive – such as blurring faces. While PET is good if information has to be collected, we should still question the collection in the first place. Some info just should not be collected.

Male singers in the London area are being invited to attend the Amabile Men Aloud choral symposium on Jan 29 and 30. (My son is with Amabile.)

As Ken Fleet, co-conductor, said in a recent letter to the Free Press:

The Amabile Boys & Men’s Choirs are hosting a choral symposium on Jan. 29 and 30, called Men Aloud in what we believe will be the largest gathering of boys and men singing in concert ever held in the London region. This event celebrates the power and joy of male singing, and we invite boys with unchanged voices, high school youth, and men to participate in this exciting venture. No experience needed.

Rehearsals, singing workshops and activities will be held at Medway secondary school, with the final concert at 6 p.m. at First-St. Andrews United Church on Jan. 30.

Renowned guest conductors Ethan Sperry (Miami University), Linda Beaupre (Toronto), Viki Meredith, Darryl Edwards, Torin Chiles and Todd Wieczorek will provide leadership.

For further information, e-mail Andrea Emery at aemery@rogers.com by Wednesday. For concert tickets, call 519-641-6795 519-641-6795. For more information, go to www.amabile.com.

Details are on the Amabile web site.

For the  London Free Press – January 18, 2010

Read this on Canoe

Rival service Plurk alleges Microsoft copied as much as 80% of the code used in running the Juku program without permission

Microsoft recently susp-ended its new microblogging site, Juku, after it became clear the site contained code taken without permission from rival startup Plurk, a free social networking and microblogging service based in Canada.

Plurk recently alleged Microsoft copied as much as 80% of the code used in running the Juku program without permission. After investigating, Microsoft confirmed some Juku code had been used without permission and apologized to Plurk.

Though Microsoft admitted the plagiarism, it claimed a Chinese vendor developing the Juku application for MSN China was responsible for copying the code without permission.

“When we hire an outside company to do development work, our practice is to include strong language in our contract that clearly states the company must provide work that does not infringe the intellectual property rights of others . . . we are obviously very disappointed, but we assume responsibility for the situation. We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation,” Microsoft said in a statement.

In response, Plurk co-founder Alvin Woon said, “we are still thinking of pursuing the full extent of our legal options available due the seriousness of the situation . . . basically, Microsoft accepts responsibility, but they do not offer accountability.”

“This event wasn’t just a simple matter of merely lifting code . . . due to the nature of the uniqueness of our product and user interface, it took a good amount of deliberate studying and digging through our code with the full intention of replicating our product-user experience, functionality, and end results. This product was later launched and heavily promoted by Microsoft with its big marketing budget,” Woon said.

This is not the first time Microsoft has apologized for infringing the intellectual property rights of others.

A month before the Juku allegations, Microsoft apologized for another third-party vendor improperly incorporating open-source codes into a Windows 7 download tool. The tool was developed to allow users to more easily load Windows 7 onto thumb drives. Microsoft subsequently withdrew the tool.

The recent allegations about Microsoft have caught many by surprise given that Microsoft has been a leader in the fight against piracy in China and elsewhere.

The lesson for anyone who hires others to create code or other creative works is the importance of having an agreement in place that requires the code to be original.

In the Juku case, it appears the contractor did not abide by that requirement. But having it in place let Microsoft move swiftly to protect its reputation, and show that, while it may be ultimately responsible, it did not intend or condone the copying. It should also give Microsoft some recourse against the contractor.

This ad for a New York law firm has been mentioned in a few places.

I saw it on Gary Wise’s blog.

That’s my Slaw post for today.  It reads as follows:

That’s ‘fair use’ as in copyright, not ‘world’s fair’ – although copyright does sometimes seem to have a carnival atmosphere around the various debates and tactics around copyright law and enforcement.

Michael posted a good summary of the issue regarding Canadian law. (Its called ‘fair dealing’ here.)

Also see the WFUD web site.