Please Take this Poll!

I've decided to write my thesis paper for my Cyberspace Law class on the lack of transparency and "meeting of the minds" when a user consents to online Terms of Service Agreements. If you want a full history of my thoughts behind this visit click here.

I wanted to get a little outsider perspective on Terms of Service Agreements. I know a lot of people don't read them. As I stated in my last post on TOS Agreements, I think the idea of reading a long block of text is overwhelming and frustrating to users. I presented some ideas on how TOS Agreements could be improved. I've now decided to poll all my readers on their thoughts about TOS Agreement improvements since I didn't receive a lot of response from my previous post. (Now you can answer anonymously and easily.)

(Click the image to enlarge preview.)




:) Thank you for taking the time to fill out my poll! I appreciate it immensely!

Too far? AMP Before You Score Pepsi App

I write this post with some hesitance. I say that for two reasons. One, because I find the new AMP Before You Score Pepsi App rather distasteful and offensive. Two, because SERIOUSLY!? Just watch this video.



Just the name of the application is disgusting! Before You Score!? Stereotyping women is pretty sleezy, but then keeping track of them on your "Brag List" is even sleezier. Ew.

Here's a quote from the different stereotypes and an explanation of the application. Jezebel's Post on the iPhone app.

Here's how it works:

1. Identify Her Type
Got your eye on a girl, and aren't sure how to get started? Pick out her profile, flip the card, and study up quick with a cheatsheet on the stuff she's into, with lists, links and some surefire opening lines. (Surefire to what, we won't say.)

2. Keep a List
Get lucky? Add her to your Brag List. You can include a name, date and whatever details you remember.

3. Brag
You got it? Flaunt it. Keep your buddies in the loop on email, Facebook or Twitter.***

Here's who you get:
Artist
Aspiring Actress
Athlete
Bookworm
Businesswoman
Celebrity
Cougar
Dancer
Foreign Exchange Student
Goth Girl
Indie Rock Girl
Married
Military Girl
Nerd
Out-Of-Your-League Girl
Political Girl
Princess
Punk Rock Girl
Rebound Girl
Sorority Girl
Treehugger
Trouble
Twins
Women's Studies Major

*** It's not clear from my experience with the application that it actually lets you post anything to Facebook or twitter. This could be a feature maybe integrated later? Which then could have very real and possible legal consequences.

I downloaded the application, because I don't believe in ranting about something unless you've used it. So here is my review:

• The graphics are cool.
• The application is smooth and easy to understand. (Small learning curve for small minded men.)
  
• The information on the flip side of each stereotype is creative. Ex: Business News on the flip side of the Business Woman Stereotype and Wikipedia Page describing Picasso and his work on the flip side of the Artist Stereotype. There's also a map feature to look up venues where the stereotyped woman and you might hang out. (I guess that's useful for date ideas)
• But my question is: Why are you dating someone you have nothing in common with in the first place?

The wisest of men would know and realize that no woman is so easily categorized. In fact, men who actually are the "cool guys" don't use applications like these to decode the female gender. They know that common interests mean more than reiterating random facts on Picasso's life found on Wikipedia page.

How pathetic are the men who download and use this application? Do you really an iPhone application to help you get a date? Is it really so difficult to find a woman who likes you for you? Is it so difficult that you have to try to illy stereotype every woman you meet and look up random facts just so you can hold a conversation with her? How sad is it that you have to hijack the interests of the girl you're hitting on and pretend your interests are the same as hers?

I guess there's no real legal harm in an application like this - it's just offensive and pretty pathetic. It's kind of disheartening. I've been racking my brain all night trying to think of a cause of action, but the only thing I can think of is if that Brag List became public. Even then, the only cause of action I can think of would be Libel/Slander or Defamation. However, the Brag List would have to be spread to the public (i.e. Facebook, Twitter, word of mouth, etc.)

As I noted above, my application doesn't have any functionality for syncing with Twitter or Facebook as suggested in the quoted material. So I can't see any legal claims if the names of individuals is stored in a list format on a phone and used solely for personal use. Any ideas for other legal claims I might have missed?

Needless to say, this application makes me seriously question the quality of men out there. If men have to resort to such low techniques to start up a conversation with a woman, then there really is no hope.

Video Legal Marketing, Like a Solid Handshake?

Legal Marketing Done Different

Have you ever looked for an attorney? Did you open the yellow pages? Phone a friend? Google Search it?

Looking for an attorney can be an overwhelming experience because there are so many choices. There are a dozens of listings for lawyers in the yellow books and in online search results. It can be difficult to find one who makes you feel comfortable and fits your needs. If I were a client, my number one priorities would be trust and confidence that my attorney had my interests at heart. That's why I am not completely opposed to the a new online legal marketing service called LegalTube.

LegalTube is an online video service that allows law firms to upload marketing videos to its site. The website is divided by areas of law and allows users to search by state or by city and state for a lawyer in the client's area. The website also features lawyer jokes, lawyer stories, original webisodes, a hot topics section, an expert Q&A section, an off the record section and links to other legal resources on the web.

Interrestingly, the website caps the Find a Lawyer function at four attorneys per location per practice area. For example, if a client is searching for an IP attorney in Alabama, he or she will not be bombarded with 50 text listings. Instead, the client will see four available attorneys in Alabama - in this case, there is only one IP firm currently advertising with LegalTube in Alabama: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. For the visual learners, here is their video:


If I was a potential client, I would love the idea of a service like LegalTube. One of the key factors I would be looking for when searching for an attorney would be that I could trust my attorney and that I would be confident they had my interests at heart. Services like LegalTube would allow the clients to get a preview of what a consultation may be like with an attorney before actually sitting down face to face.

The next thing I am about to say is a bit cliches, but I have to say it. Where I grew up (Texas), first impressions mean a lot. Trust is built on something as simple as a handshake and your word. I don't think Texans are the only people who think this way either. A large percentage of the population places trust in something a simple as a face to face conversation. If LegalTube can offer the first building blocks for establishing trust between a client and attorney, then why not market your legal services with them?

Criticisms

However, Rex Gradeless pointed out a few criticisms that I found particularly compelling that I thought should be shared with you all.

First, many state bar associations have rules requiring attorneys place disclaimers on online advertisements. LegalTube fails to address the varying state bar association requirements for legal advertising and does not indicate which states allow for online video advertising.

The terms of service state:

The information on this website and pages within, is not intended to provide specific legal, financial or tax advice, or any other advice, whasoever, for any indivdiual or company should not be relied upon in that regard.

The services described in this website are only offered in jurisdictions where they may be legally offered. Information provided in our website is not all-inclusive, and is limited to information that is made avaialbe to LegalTube, LLC and such informaiton should not be relied upon as all-inclusive or accurate.

Second, there are other online video sites directed at attorneys. Such as the VideoVenue, which allows lawyers to upload videos concerning current topics for discussion and debate in the legal field and funn videos pertaining the the law. See this video for an example:



Also, websites like the Legal Broadcasting Network, offer a website dedicated to promoting lawyers in the media and boast a larger audience base for online legal video.

Finally, YouTube and Vimeo have a large stake in the online video market with millions of viewers.

The Criticisms to Consider and the Ones to Ignore

First, it is true that a few of the bar associations are very strict about legal marketing. Here's a post by a fellow law blog talking more about legal ethics and online marketing and networking sites. It's smart to always check the rules of ethics in your state before performing any form of legal marketing - especially on the internet. In this instance, Rex is right - double check everything. Heed his advice.

Second, although both these sites offer a greater audience, their marketing message is not the same as LegalTube's message.

Unlike the Legal Broadcasting Network, which focuses mainly on branding lawyers as legal experts for commentary purposes, LegalTube focuses on legal marketing between clients and lawyers in a one-on-one atmosphere. I get the impression that LBN is talking at me, instead of talking to me. Whereas, LegalTube seems more focused on the relationship between the client and the attorney.

Also, LegalTube is for legal marketing, whereas VideoVenue seems like a site targeted at casual conversation between lawyers, not legal marketing . The only similiarity between the two sites is the legal jokes, webisodes and lawyer stories. However, LegalTube seems to be more focused on attorney-client building and expert Q & A by location.

YouTube and Vimeo do not cater to the online community. Both websites offer a huge audience base, but offer no way for an attorney to separate his or her firm from the rest. The idea of a huge audience base is enticing, but what chances does a legal marketing video have against the latest and greatest most popular YouTube video? Not a very strong chance.

I am a fan of LegalTube because I think it's tapping into an old market in a new way. It offers unique features that aren't available anywhere else. I like the idea of being able to get a face to face preview of a client consult and the features that allow me to search for a lawyer by practice area and location. Maybe YouTube does offer a larger audience, but a large audience is pointless if nobody is listening.

A Lack of Youth Reaction to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Win

When something newsworthy happens, Social Media outlets are a buzz with reactions, theories, explanations, stories, etc. Social Media is reflective of the culture it exists within. So it was no surprise that today's announcement resulted in a variety of opinions and thoughts flooding the Social Media outlets.

Just in case you aren't up to date, today President Barack Obama was awarded one of the highest honors in history, the Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm not here to discuss whether I think he "deserved" the win - which seems to be the most popular topic of conversation. I'm here to talk about young people's reaction to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win - or rather their lack of reaction.

I was surprised at how few of my friends on Facebook were talking about Obama's Nobel Prize Win. My Twitter account has been flooded all morning with tweets discussing the nomination.

For a very long time analysts have been asking themselves why young people seem so apathetic towards politics. My Facebook friends aren't apathetic towards Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win, but they are jaded by politics.

Young people are not engaged in politics because despite all the statements to the contrary, young people think their opinions don't matter and are jaded by the bickering, and the name calling and the finger pointing. At then end of the day, politics feels like a bureaucratic mess. It's easy to sit back and watch a bunch of old men fight over a law or social program. Said law or social program will probably be overturned or have the funding stripped from it anyway with the next president. Why work so hard for something that can be so easily lost? Young people are realists and they know better than to wear their hearts on their sleeves, hearts are fragile and easily broken. So are laws and social programs.

In the broader scope of things, young people care more about what's going on in pop culture than what's going on in the world.For example, in college I had a French professor from Mali. He asked the class, "How many of you know where my country is on this map of Africa?" The map was a lot like the one below - there were no country names, but lines were shown to indicate the borders of each country. Nobody could answer our professor. Nobody had any idea where Mali was on a map of Africa. Had my professor asked us where Borat was from, I'm sure we could have at least named the country and identified a general area on the continent of Asia where we believed the fictional country of Kazakhastan should be located.

Questions like those make me wonder how many young people know where Iraq and Afghanistan are located on a map of Asia. This isn't a criticism of young people, it's an explanation of why young people don't update their Facebook status expressing their opinions over Obama's Nobel Prize Win.

Young people don't care because it's not relevant to their lives. Most young people don't own any property, were given the vehicle they drive, work part-time as a babysitter, fast food employee or retail employee. The world matters in the context of the few events that affect their lives at that very moment. Why?

Because in young people's lives, their opinions don't matter - not at work, not at school, not even with their parents. Inevitably, young people do what they are told or they defy orders and face whatever consequences they receive as a result. After defiance, they are often told how they made poor decisions, were irresponsible or shouldn't defy authority. If the world shunned your opinions by punishing your actions, would you continue to express your opinions or would you just say "eff it" and let it be?

So when you read young people's Facebook status updates, don't be surprised if they don't seem to care much about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win. The only people I could find who cared and expressed their opinion about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Win were both law students.

Either way, Social Media outlets like Facebook are a great place for young people to express their opinions on their daily lives or pop culture, but don't expect to see too many updates on politics. It would be very antisocial for a young person to post a news article on a serious topic on Facebook. Young people primarily use Facebook for it's social aspect, not for its informative value. (Unless of course the informative value is to see who is dating whom and what that cute guy from high school is doing now.)

Social Media is reflective of our culture. Therefore, if a few pieces of informative content get squished into some status updates and a few jaded young people become a little more informed, then maybe my law student friends who post informative articles on Facebook aren't updating their statuses in vain.

Freedom of Speech vs. Defamatory Statements

There's a reason parents tell their children not to call each other names. If you do it as an adult the consequences are more extreme than a mere slap on the wrist. Someone who spreads malicious information about another on the internet can be sued for defamation.

What is defamation? Defamation is (a) a defamatory statement, (b) published to a third party, (c) which the speaker knew or should have known was false.

Defamatory statements harm the reputation of the targeted individual. Defamatory Per Se are statements so clearly defamatory that the targeted individual doesn't have to show there was harm to his or her reputation. Example of this include allegations of criminal activity, sexual misconduct, or allegations that a person has a horrible or serious disease.

So why can't you say what you want online? What happened to freedom of speech? The 1st Amendment guarantees certain rights, but just like it's illegal to yell "fire" in a busy train station, it's illegal to spread false statements about a person on the internet.

With the advent of the internet, more and more content creators have found means for expressing their opinions, ideas, and knowledge base (both good and bad). However, these technological advancements have allowed for the easy accesibility to forums for posting opinions, such as Blogger, Wordpress, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

For example, the California Defamation Law Blog posted a nasty exchange between Perez Hilton and Kirstie Alley on Twitter. In the exchange, Alley compared Hilton to Nazis, called him a pedophile repeatedly and then characterized him as "like a rapist". Perez Hilton responded back by asking who Alley's attorneys were and delcaring that she was making libelous, defamatory statements. Perez Hilton is right, it's not okay to spread false statements about another online. This is clearly defamation!

On top of the crazed celebrity rants, The New York Law Blog is reporting a 216% increase in libel suits against bloggers in the last three years. The New York Law Blog also suggests that the reason for the increase in number is homeowners liability insurance.

I know, you're thinking: WHAT!? Yes. Many homeowner's insurance policies include a clause for libel including attorneys fees! So now bloggers have become the target of defamation suites. In the past, nobody sued small bloggers because the libel clause didn't exist, now it does and libel suits have grown astronomically. If your a blogger and your policy doesn't include this clause, maybe you should update your policy just in case you have a stressful day at work and decide to blog about how much you love your job and your boss.

Even if an anonymous blogger wants to write something nasty and remain unknown, that right doesn't exist. A blog is not a personal diary. It's not for your eyes only. The content bloggers write is public and even if its not searchable, it can be found. Bloggers need to beware of what they write and double check and re-read everything. It's not okay to spread lies, to make false statements or to intentionally or unintentionally attack another's reputation. Anonymity does not exist on the internet, so bloggers should be prepared to take responsibiliy for their statements.

It seems the safest bet is to stick to the age-old principles any good mother would teach: If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all. But if I stick to this line of reasoning, I can't help wondering what happened to freedom of speech? Our most controversial and beloved 1ST AMENDMENT has to carry more weight than an age-old admonishment?

Isn't the point of having access to an open forum like the internet to share ideas and thoughts? False statements? No. But critiques, suggestions, insights and satires? Yes. So maybe the saying should be: "Don't lie, but feel free to question and critique." Either way, content generators (aka: bloggers, twitter lovers, facebook stalkers, etc.) should be aware that the law still applies to online activity.

Does Anybody Read Terms of Service Agreements?

Last week in my Cyberspace Law Class we were educated on the importance of Shrink Wrap Licenses, Click Wrap Licenses, and Browser Wrap Licenses. You can read all about my class room perspective here.

Basically, all those licenses are the licenses we consent to when download software, buy it on CD or use a web based software (webware). I will admit here and now, I don't read a lot of the licenses. In fact, I've probably read a total of six all of which was required for my Technology and the Law class last summer. What does all this mean? It means those of us who fail to read the "I agree" screens and just click "I agree" are actually consenting to terms we've never read. Which leads me to ask: How effective can those licenses be if nobody actually reads them? Doesn't Contracts 101 require a "meeting of the minds" before a contract can be formed?

I have a few theories on why nobody reads those licenses:

1. Nobody likes reading blocks of text, it makes us tired and we're overwhelmed by the idea of having to read tiny text on a screen that spans 20 pages.
2. Even if users did take the time to read the licenses, nobody would understand what they are saying because they are written in overly complicated legalease.
3. It's too easy to just click "accept" or "I agree" and finish installing the software.

Would you read the the terms of service if they were:

1. Written in plain, simple, everyday terms, short and to the point. (Like bullet points).
   
2. Were pictoral or visual like the Creative Commons Licenses?
3. Reminded you with updates of new terms?
4. Were easy to find on a website or from a software?
5. Required you to type the main point of the license, such as, "I agree not to share the music I download"?
6. Required you to check an accept button next to each statement you consent to?
7. Allowed you to negotiate the terms with drop down boxes or choices?
   

I want your opinions and thoughts as well. Do you read the terms of service of all the websites you use and do you actually read the legalease posted on the "I accept" pop-up windows when installing software? Tell me if any of my theories fit with why you don't read the licenses. Suggest your own theories!

Domains, Domains, Domains

I'm doing a presentation on Domain Name Dispute Resoultion for my Cyberspace Law class next Monday and my mind is full of great cases and Trademark Infringement litigation theories.

I understand why Domain Names are so valuable especially to a Trademark holder. Unfortunately, I don't really understand why there can't be one database that registers your domain name in all the possible Top-Level Domains.

TLDs = ".com", ".net", ".fr", ".es", etc.)

Second Level Domains = "yahoo", "google", "blogger". (the actual name of the trademark on most cases)

"www." identifies the web server

It seems like so many of the disputes over domain names could be resolved if there was a company/service which would automatically renew and update a second level domain in all the TLDs. Most of the disputes I've seen arise between someone cybersquatting on a desired domain for a particular TLD or stealing an expired domain from a company when they forget to renew their service.

Why hasn't anyone thought of creating a service that automatically renews second level domains and registers a second level domain in every applicavle TLD? Is it too expensive? I can think of tons of companies who register second level domain names that find the process of renewing with the repective registries quite cumbersome and annoying, but absolutely necessary.

Think Google alone: "www.google.com", "www.google.fr", "www.google.mx" and "www.google.es". Think about how many times those second level domains expire and how cumbersome it is to remember each and every date and place of registry! AND that's only a few of their second level domain names!

Why isn't this all centralized? Has any company attempted to profit from the idea of automatically keeping track and renewing these second level domain names for companies like Google?

Seems like a profitable endeavor to me. Thoughts?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone