Castro believes that current legislation on advertising could be detrimental for online businesses. Stricter privacy regulation for online advertising could reduce money that goes toward supporting free content or inexpensive content as well as applications and services.  Castro also feels that this could reduce start up funding and the effectiveness of advertising.

It is pointed out that in Europe, when advertising privacy laws went into action the effectiveness of the ads was reduced by 65% decreasing revenue produced by ads that supports websites.  In the U.S. non-search advertising grew from $6 billion in 2002 to $13 billion in 2007.  Castro believes that we would see a sharp decline in these figures with stricter controls and that Congress should consider the full ecosystem of the Internet before making blanket policy that could damage the Internet economy.

You can find the full article here.

Liability for accidents should generally be levied against all those who create risk factors.  And Phoenix Center examines if this is also the case with software developers.  They determined that there are two types of software, an intrinsic variety and an extrinsic variety.

In determining liability the scholars look at several issues:

1. The Purpose and Development of Product Liability Rules
2. The Hurdles of Applying Product Liability Law to Software
3. Economics of Liability

The article concludes that applying liability ruling on software blindly is unwise.  Not all types of software are mass-produced goods. And some software will have more user input than others meaning defect can often come from use rather than being a manufacturing problem.  The authors feel that there may be some blanket treatment of liability for problems surrounding “intrinsic” software, but that “extrinsic” software should be treated on a case by case basis.

You can read the full article here.

Computer and Video Games reported in May that EA Sports, an arm of Electronic Arts, would begin bundling all sports titles with a one time registration key code to access online play.  EA feels that the second hand market is hurting new game sales.  In order to deter second hand purchase EA has made the decision to force second hand buyers to pay a $10 fee to access online content.

Andrew Wilson, Senior VP of Worldwide Development at EA Sports commented that,

“In order to continue to enhance the online experiences that are attracting nearly five million connected game sessions a day, again, we think it’s fair to get paid for the services we provide and to reserve these online services for people who pay EA to access them.

“In return, we’ll continue to invest in creating great games and offer industry-leading online services to extend the game experience to everyone. I don’t think even the harshest cynic can argue with that and instead I think fans will see the value we’re committing to deliver when they see all the services, features and bonus content that is extending the life of their products.”

More recently, THQ has also confirmed that they will move toward the use of an access code for online play.  THQ is the publisher of popular wrestling games, and has determined that they will institute the policy for the first time in their upcoming title “Smackdown vs. Raw 2011″.  Those purchasing the game in the second hand market will have to pay around $10 for a code to access online content.

Cory Ledsma, who is a creative director for THQ’s wrestling series of games commented that those buying games new were the companies “loyal fans,” and also feels that used game buyers are cheating the publishers, saying,

“I don’t think we really care whether used game buyers are upset because new game buyers get everything. So if used game buyers are upset they don’t get the online feature set I don’t really have much sympathy for them.  That’s a little blunt but we hope it doesn’t disappoint people. We hope people understand that when the game’s bought used we get cheated.  I don’t think anyone wants that so in order for us to make strong, high-quality WWE games we need loyal fans that are interested in purchasing the game. We want to award those fans with additional content.”

You can find the full articles here and here.

In 2009 the Federal Trade Commission issued warning to the world of advertising that if advertising agencies that used behavorial advertising within their published ads did not self-regulate then the FTC would act on their behalf.  In order to self-regulate, leading ad agencies formed the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) to establish industry guidelines following the principles suggested by the FTC’s “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising”.

The paper suggests 7 principles in order to self-regulate:

1. The Education Principle – Focus on educating customers on behavioral advertising.
2. The Transparency Principle – Take steps to clearly inform consumers about what is happening with collected data.
3. The Consumer Control Principle – Create a mechanism in which consumers can choose whether their data is collected or not.
4. The Data Security Principle – Collected data for behavioral advertising must be reasonably secured and data retention limited.
5. The Material Changes Principle – Agencies must acquire permission from the consumer before they change the way they are collecting data.
6. The Sensitive Data Principle – Certain data should require more restrictive practices in its collection and use and should take the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act in consideration for example.
7. The Accountability Principle – Calls for all advertising agencies using behavioral advertising to put in place accountability programs to ensure the use of the established principles.

It is believed by the IAB that with these principles in place, agencies will be able to self-regulate the industry and there will be no need for government regulatory action.

You can read about the 7 principles in detail here.

Downes has recently penned a paper for PFF in which he briefly explains how we have gotten to the point we are currently at in the Net Neutrality debate.  He follows this with the options the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had after the D.C. Circuit case against Comcast:

1. “Refocus its ancillary jurisdiction argument, perhaps attaching it to some other provision of the Communications Act that hadn’t been rejected by the D.C. Circuit.”
2. “Appeal the decision, either to an en banc sitting of the circuit court or to the U.S. Supreme Court or both. (Both options 1 and 2 would be discretionary appeals to the respective courts.”
3. “Request legislation by Congress that would, one way or the other, undo Comcast.”
4. “‘The nuclear option’: Reverse a decade of FCC decisions interpreting the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act and classify broadband Internet access as a ‘telecommunications service’ subject to the full regulatory powers of the Commission under Title II of the Act. Title II would give the FCC all the jurisdiction it needed and then
   some to continue with the NPRM, but at the cost of a radical extension of the agency’s power over Internet access, power that the FCC itself had successfully argued to the U.S. Supreme Court and elsewhere that Congress had never intended to give it.”

As many know and Downes points out, the FCC has made a strong step toward the “Third Way” and what many have termed “Title II Light”.  And because of this, Downes has developed his own Seven Deadly Sins of Title II Reclassification.

• “Pride: As the FCC attempts to define what services would be subjected to reclassification, the agency runs the risk of both under- and over-inclusion, which could harm consumers, network operators, and content and applications providers.
• Lust: The agency is reaching out for additional powers beyond its reclassification proposals — including an effort to wrest privacy enforcement powers from the Federal Trade Commission and putting itself in charge of cybersecurity for homeland security.
• Anger: The “Third Way” may dramatically expand the scope of federal wiretapping laws, requiring law enforcement “back doors” for a wide range of products and services.
• Gluttony: Reclassifying broadband opens the door to state and local government regulation, which would overwhelm Internet access with a deluge of conflicting, and innovation-killing, laws, rules and new consumer taxes.
• Sloth: As the FCC looks for a legal basis to defend reclassification, basic activities — such as caching, searching, and browsing — may for the first time be included in the category of services subject to “common carrier” regulation.
• Vanity: Though wireless networks face greater challenges from the broadband Internet than wireline networks, the FCC seems poised to impose more, not less, regulation on wireless broadband.
• Greed: Reclassification of broadband services could vastly expand the contribution base for the Universal Service Fund, adding new consumer fees while supersizing this important, but exceedingly wasteful, program.”

You can find the full paper here.

Castro makes the case that “cloud computing” has become an industry buzz word much like “Web 2.0″.  But he does feel that this trend in computing will play a very important role in the creation of “new products and services for businesses, governments and individuals.”

The development of cloud computing and interest in the subject has clearly become more important within the last few years as Castro indicates in the following chart:

Castro discusses several types of cloud computing, including:

• Software as a service (SAAS)
• Platform as a service (PAAS)
• Infrastructure as a service (IAAS)

Castro believes that cloud computing will continue to prosper, but that policy should be created that adapts and benefits from all available opportunities so that developments are not restricted to the U.S.  He refers to this as “resist[ing] merchantilist policies.”  And finally he also feels that the U.S. should establish “cloud-neutral policies” so that policy is neither favoring or hurting any new business models or start ups.

You can find the full article here.

Similar to the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. case, the “safe harbor” clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protected YouTube’s founders from civil liabilities because they had responded to take down notices.  In the process of doing this they were also allowing for copyright violations and piracy just like the Grokster case.

Because of this, Sydnor feels that the recent Viacom Int’l, Inc v. YouTube, Inc. case is just a repeat of bad judicial decisions allowing for individuals to receive safe harbor even though the government classifies their actions as criminal racketeering enterprises.  Additionally he feels that, “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ‘[w]hen Congress codifies a judicially defined concept; it is presumed… to adopt the interpretation placed on that concept by the courts.’ Therefore, the DMCA did not adopt judge-defined terms intended to convey the lack of any knowledge requirement in order to tell judges that Congress intended to impose an item-specific knowledge requirement.”

In this article, Sydnor considers the following:

1. How the Viacom Opinion created a “safe harbor” for corporations that profit by intentionally massive copyright piracy.
2. The elephant in the mousehole: Did President Clinton and Congress really create civil “safe harbors” for criminal racketeering enterprises?
3. The “ordinary-meaning rule” proves that the DMCA was not intended to mean the opposite of what legislators should have understood it to say.

Based on the notion that the government has created a safe harbor for criminal enterprise and that the codification of a defined concept is being twisted, Sydnor believes that the ruling will be reversed.

You can find the full article here.

Bennett discusses video navigation devices in his most recent reply comments to the FCC.  Navigation devices are more commonly known as personal video recorders (PVR) in these comments.  Bennett believes that the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on PVRs is based on technology of navigation devices in the late 1990′s.  He feels that ITIF can offer a different solution that both meets the FCC’s long term goals and will meet consumer needs.

In course of the Reply Comments, Bennett discusses the following:

• History of the Personal Video Recorder
• Current Claims
• Why the Retail PVR Hasn’t Prospered
• An Alternative Video Gateway

The NPRM suggests a device known as the All Vid gateway/adapter which would be a route between MVPD devices and retail PVRs.  “Programming and program guide data flows from the MVPD to the PVR over a standard interface, and tuning requests flow from the PVR through the gateway and on to the MVPD’s internal equipment.”

Bennett concludes that reconceptualizing this idea as a device that acts as a search of all your equipment and services for content would be a much better vision.  He compares it to having a “local version of Netflix” in your house.

You can find the comments here.

Jim Glassman interviews three experts on cybersecurity and Americas readiness for a cyberattack.  Nearly a year after the Obama Administration review, these experts suggest that we are still not ready.

The experts discuss:

• Planting Seeds of Disruption in Systems
• Tracking Hackers
• Public Policy
• Mutually Assured Survivability
• Intelligence Elements Monitoring Actors
• Funding for Cybersecurity
• Google vs. China
• Do we need a Cybersecurity cabinet member?
• Cyber Pearl Harbor

You can find the source here.

Saint reports that 4Chan.org’s founder Christopher “moot” Poole was called in as government witness in order to testify to the definition of terminology used on the web forum.

Poole had been called to testify due to 4Chan’s involvement in the “hacking” of Sarah Palins Yahoo email account during the 2008 elections by David Kernell.  Kernell who initially uploaded images found on Palin’s email account to 4Chan was later arrested and given two felony counts for the incident.

Poole was previously involved with authorities after the incident and was forced to hand over server logs and records by way of FBI search warrant.

Provided below is the testimony of Poole describing 4Chan terminology to the court:

Christopher Moot Poole Testimony in Palin Email Trial

You can find the Business Insider report here.