For the London Free Press – January 12, 2009

Read this on Canoe

For the London Free Press – January 5, 2009

Read this on Canoe

It’s time to hazard some predictions for 2009 tech developments.

REPLACING VISTA

Microsoft probably will bring out its Windows 7 operating system early, given the cool reception Vista has received. It might even be available before the end of the year.

It will be interesting to see what tactic Microsoft takes regarding the upgrade of Vista to Windows 7.

It would not be surprising to see Microsoft allow Vista users to upgrade to Windows 7 for a relatively small fee, given the negative cloud that hangs over Vista.

This is an instance where perception is more important than reality, so it would be a good move for Microsoft to offer upgrades for a nominal fee.

NEW COPYRIGHT LAW

The copyright reform bill that died at the last election will at some point be reintroduced. The previous versions — one by the Liberal government, the most recent by the Conservative government — drew loud protests from consumers and producers of creative material.

The latest copyright reform bill resulted in such a hue and cry, that we hope the drafters of the next bill will consider the reasons behind the negative reaction.

What is needed is an attempt to listen to all stakeholders and draft a bill that faces the 21st century in a more realistic and practical manner.

To some extent, the new bill may be influenced by the American election.

One reason the Canadian bill was drafted in favour of certain entertainment lobby interests was pressure from Washington, which in turn was pressured by those lobby groups. The U.S. has tried to pressure many countries into adopting copyright policies consistent with that vision.

It will be interesting to see if the change in U.S. government makes a difference, both to its own copyright position and to the pressure it places on other countries regarding copyright.

Some commentators don’t believe it will make a difference because much of the U.S. legislation was passed in the Clinton era.

It would not, however, be surprising to see a softened position on copyright in countries outside the U.S., especially if the new administration takes a more gentle approach to foreign policy.

THE .TEL DOMAIN

The new .tel top level domain will be an interesting development to follow in 2009. When it becomes operational this year, it has the potential to become a ubiquitous online directory.

This top level domain is different than .com or others that currently exist. Rather than being used for web pages that the user must create and host, it is meant to be used as a contact directory.

But I’m skeptical that the .tel domain name and directory system will gain the critical mass required to become universally accepted and useful.

PRIVACY ISSUES

On the privacy side, there seems to be some momentum in Canada toward making it mandatory to make public any unintended breaches of personal information.

I don’t think it is likely, however, that this change will see the light of day in 2009, given other priorities resulting from the economic situation.

For the London Free Press – December 22, 2008

Read this on Canoe

For the London Free Press – December 15, 2008

Read this on Canoe

For the London Free Press – December 8, 2008

Read this on Canoe

With an aging baby boomer population, succession planning is quickly becoming one of the biggest issues facing business owners. Lawyers are beginning to see the negative effects of the failure to plan ahead.

Though succession planning has received significant attention in recent years, many businesses have yet to put plans in place. Those who have thought about it may not have thought it through or put a plan in place.

For many business owners and entrepreneurs, the prospect of turning over to a successor the business they have put so much of their lives into building is too emotional to deal with. A properly prepared and executed succession plan can alleviate concerns over the future of their business, help ensure that their business thrives long after they exit and maximize their profit on leaving.

We have already seen situations in which a business owner is thinking of retiring in a few years and selling their business to a chosen individual who may already work there.

The owner discusses the idea with the individual, and strikes a loose, imprecise arrangement by which the individual will assume more responsibilities or service more of the business owner’s long-term customers over time. Sometimes it goes along with altered compensation packages where compensation is based not on a salary but on some kind of commission or fee structure.

But that plan goes awry along the way, leaving both parties frustrated and killing the arrangement. Why? Because the arrangement is loose, either not or poorly documented, and each party has a different view as to how and when the transition is to occur.

The owner may decide he wants to work longer, concerned about a reduced income in the transition years and in retirement, or just can’t seem to give up those customers or part of his control over the business.

The buyer gets frustrated because he or she is not getting the control they anticipated, and the transition is taking far longer than expected.

In the meantime, because of the slow transition, their compensation may actually drop, not rise. Each party is left feeling the other is not living up to their end of the bargain.

At a minimum, the relationship is soured and neither party is happy. And the buyer may just get fed up and walk away from the business and the deal.

So how can this mutual destruction and frustration be avoided?

Having a clear, mutual understanding in both parties’ minds is key to reducing the risk. While the owner may find it difficult, they should have frank discussions with the proposed successor with a view to entering a clear, mutually acceptable, clearly drafted written succession plan or purchase agreement.

And if the parties can’t reach a deal, at least they find out sooner rather than later. That lets both weigh their options before they become limited.

for the London Free Press – Dec 1, 2008

Read this on Canoe

A recent decision by the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the organization responsible for global co-ordination of the Internet’s addressing system, will permit companies and individuals to turn their names into Web addresses: www.david.canton, for example.

The wrinkle? The fee to obtain .canton as a TLD, or top level domain, is about $200,000.

This year, ICANN relaxed the strict rules on TLDs, paving the way for alternatives to .com and the 21 generic TLDs serving the Net. There are also country-level TLDs such as .ca for Canada.

Now ICANN is about to allow new generic top level domains (gTLDs) that anyone can create, opening the door for companies to register their brands as gTLDs, such as “.coke”.

“The Internet has produced great openness and innovation that has led to changes few of us imagined,” said Paul Twomey, ICANN’s president and chief executive. “The effect of opening up the top-level of the domain system will enable more innovation and entrepreneurial applications.”

ICANN also plans to introduce domain names in various languages and scripts, including Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian. This proposal would permit Internet addresses to be created in completely non-English characters for the first time, opening the Internet to millions more people worldwide.

Currently, the addressing system only supports 37 Roman characters. ICANN’s chairperson, Peter Dengate Thrush, has said this move “is going to be very important for the future of the Internet in Asia, the Middle East, eastern Europe and Russia.”

ICANN’s proposal is not without its critics, however. Opponents argue that it will be costly, difficult to administer and could lead to bidding wars over more generic names.

In addition, trademarks will not be automatically reserved. Owners will have to resort to an objection-based mechanism to make arguments for the protection of their trademarks.

ICANN assures critics that these concerns have been “listened to and taken into account.”

The organization released a draft of the applicant guidebook on Oct. 23, 2004, for those interested in applying for a new gTLD. On Oct. 24, 2008, ICANN began the first of two 45-day public comment periods.

ICANN warns, however, that “potential applicants for new gTLDs should not rely on any of the proposed details of the draft guidebook, which remains subject to further consultation and revision.”

With the final applicant guidebook slated for release early next year, ICANN expects to accept bids for new gTLDs as early as the second quarter of 2009.

During the application period, which is expected to be limited, “any established entity from anywhere in the world can submit an application that will go through an evaluation process.”

New gTLDs could be in use as early as the last half of 2009.

ICANN expects additional application periods will follow soon after the initial process ends.

For the London Free Press – November 24, 2008

Read this on Canoe

The new .tel Internet top level domain, or TLD (.com is an example of a TLD) launching soon may revolutionize the way we keep in touch — assuming it becomes widely adopted.

The new .tel domain, sponsored by Telnic Ltd., essentially acts as a contact directory. Individuals or corporations will be able to unify their contact information by storing, updating and publishing all contact information directly on the Internet without having to buy, design or create a website or host. The contact information can include phone numbers, addresses, websites, blogs, social networking and more.

Information about .tel is immediately available through any web browser.

The purpose of the directory is to help manage and exchange contact information about people and companies. When an individual adds a contact’s .tel to their cellphone, BlackBerry or address book, they are getting more than a phone number or e-mail address. They get all the contact information that the individual has included in their .tel listing.

One of the key attributes of the new .tel is that a recipient never has to update contact information. It is a single management and publishing point for Internet communication services. Any updates .tel owners may make to their .tel will be relayed automatically to any recipients of that .tel. For instance, if the individual moves, changes jobs, telephone numbers or e-mail, the new information is automatically available in the digital address book of the recipient.

From a business standpoint, .tel ensures existing or prospective customers, partners and employees can quickly and easily communicate with the right people and departments within the company.

Privacy is addressed by allowing individuals to filter their own content and decide who sees what information. One can, for example, set different security levels for information available to the public, information available to business colleagues, co-workers, friends or family members.

Domain names under .tel are assigned on a first come, first served basis. Trademark owners are being offered a sunrise period running from Dec. 3 to Feb. 2, so they can claim their .tel addresses ahead of the line and not risk losing their names to competitors during later registration periods.

For a premium price, “landrush” registration will be available not only to trademark owners, but also to keen registrants from Feb. 3 to March 24, 2009. Pre-bookings will be available until Feb. 3.

If you want to ensure rights to your .tel domain name, the time to sign up is now.

The concern over .tel is whether it will become popular. An individual or trademark owner may pay a premium to register their .tel domain name only to see the program fizzle. If you wait and it does become popular, it may be too late to get a .tel domain name matching your trademark.

More information on .tel is available on the web, including at domain registrar webnames.ca.

For the London Free Press – November 17, 2008

Read this on Canoe

For the London Free Press – November 10, 2008

Read this on Canoe

In a recent decision, Canada’s assistant privacy commissioner expressed “grave concern” after finding a major online company operating nationwide was violating federal privacy laws, years after the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) took effect.

A citizen’s complaint led the Privacy Commissioner to probe Ticketmaster Canada Ltd.’s privacy policy.

Headquartered in the U.S., Ticketmaster promotes events and sells tickets for event providers across Canada. In doing so, it collects and routinely discloses personal information to third parties for secondary marketing purposes.

The complaint alleged Ticketmaster’s practices contravened “principles of access, openness, accountability and consent” required by PIPEDA.

In particular, the complainant believed:

- Ticketmaster’s privacy policy was complicated and overly long;

- The company showed a lack of accountability in the way it handled personal information disclosed to third parties;

- Express, informed consent was not sought;

- Customer access to personal information was difficult.

The commissioner found Ticketmaster’s privacy policy was confusing and inconsistent, and customers weren’t adequately informed of the use and disclosure of their personal information.

Most notably, customers were forced to consent to Ticketmaster’s collection and disclosure to third parties of personal information as a condition of service, in direct contravention of PIPEDA.

Thus, the allegations that Ticketmaster’s practices violated the principles of openness and consent were well- founded.

But the allegation that Ticketmaster’s practices violated the principles of accountability was not well-founded, as adequate protection was provided to customers through contracts with third parties.

As a result of the findings, Ticketmaster revised its privacy policy to meet PIPEDA requirements.

Customers are now given the up-front opportunity to opt in to receive marketing material from Ticketmaster, and to allow the firm to share their personal information with third parties for secondary marketing. This puts control back into the consumer’s hands.

Customers are also now more consistently informed of Ticketmaster’s information-sharing policies.

The impact of this decision reaches beyond online ticket sellers. The assistant commissioner found companies operating in Canada must ensure their business practices comply with PIPEDA. Particularly, they should:

- Explicitly inform consumers of the use of any personal information collected and provide a clear opportunity to opt in or out;

- Protect personal information of customers being disclosed to third parties by contractual or other means;

- Effectively and consistently communicate to customers its personal information use and disclosure policies and practices;

- Ensure privacy policies are easily accessible so custo-mers can become informed without unreasonable effort.

For the London Free Press – Nov 3, 2008

Read this on Canoe

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) recently marked the five-year anniversary of the Recording Industry of America’s (RIAA) mass litigation campaign to curtail music piracy on the Internet by releasing a comprehensive review.

The EFF report (available at eff.org) concluded that the campaign was harmful to music fans and artists alike, but has done little to slow unauthorized file-sharing.

The report notes growing skepticism by academics, watchdog groups and most importantly by the courts about the RIAA’s investigation and strong arm enforcement tactics. The RIAA has sued or threatened to sue almost 30,000 people for file sharing.

The RIAA’s “making available” theory has been rejected by many courts, which denounces the notion that merely having a music file in a “shared” folder on a computer, which may never get copied, constitutes copyright infringement. The EFF’s report suggests the policing campaign has simply taught people to choose to share files in ways that are harder to monitor — such as burning and exchanging CDs and MP3s among friends.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing is more popular than ever, comprising 45 per cent of Internet traffic and has become a fact of Internet life as P2P popularity has continued to grow yearly.

The main critique of the policing campaign has been that it arbitrarily punishes tens of thousands of people for what tens of millions are doing and barely puts any money in the pockets of artists.

American music fans who have been sued for sharing songs on P2P file sharing networks include children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers and college professors. These individuals are the best customers the music industry has.

New lawsuits are filed monthly and are supplemented by a flood of “pre-litigation” settlement letters designed to extract settlements without the need to enter the courtroom. The RIAA has done away with the court system by threatening individuals with expensive litigation and unfavourable outcomes that leaves a lay person with no alternative but to settle for amounts ranging from $3,000 to $11,000.

An example cited by the RFF of where the disproportionate amount of punishment has had devastating consequences include a single mother who thought she was legally downloading 24 songs with her daughter who was sued for $500,000 and settled for $4,000.

Another example is a student who attempted to negotiate a settlement with the RIAA and explained that she was already in debt to cover her tuition and could not pay any amounts. In response the RIAA representative suggested she drop out of school in order to pay the settlement.

It has become evident that suing music fans is no solution to the P2P problem. The RIAA frequently justifies the lawsuit campaign as the most effective way to get music fans to understand that downloading is illegal and can have serious consequences. The policing campaign has failed however to curtail P2P downloading and has not persuaded music fans that sharing is equivalent to shoplifting.

It is evident that people are going to share music using whatever software they like on whatever computer platform they prefer, regardless of the RIAA’s efforts.