So — what should Nixon Peabody have done when its embarrassing firm non-theme song made its inevitable way onto the Web? (And into the atmosphere of countless homes and offices, as its hapless victims hum and mutter it against their will and better judgment?)

If they'd have asked me (or perhaps 95% of the over 1,000 people who have voted in the Volokh Conspiracy poll), I'd have told them the last thing they should be doing is invoking the DMCA. Instead I'd have recommended:

• applying an appropriately liberal Creative Commons license,


• holding a mashup contest, and


• showcasing the winner and the top 9 runners up on the firm's home page.

Consider and discuss the technical, legal, and/or policy differences, if any, between this and this.

I'll be on a panel at BlogHer this weekend called Professional Blogging: Art and Commerce —

The other side of the professional blogging coin is looking at the business ramification of making money with your blogging. This session will cover the things to consider and that you may regret if you wait to long to address: copyright protection, tax ramifications, managing personal vs. paid-for blogging, your site policies, and blogging ethics.

Here are my top ten legal issues pertinent to this discussion; what are yours?

1. Communications policies (your own, or someone else's which may apply)

2. Intellectual property (your own and third parties')

3. Indirect liability for third party acts

4. Civility

5. Ethics

6. Privacy

7. E-commerce

8. Data ownership, responsibilities

9. Minors

10. Special considerations for regulated businesses/industries

Here are George Lenard's posts on the subject:

Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking: Is It Legal?

More on using facebook et al. in recruiting and hiring (Part II)

Employers Using Facebook for Background Checking, Part III

This might be better suited to Overlawyered than Between Lawyers, but I'm posting it here anyway because it's a great series of posts. One thing I don't see addressed: one of the most powerful features of Facebook (and a host of other social networking sites) is the fine-grained privacy control users have over the visibility their data. Often, only "friends" have access to the kinds of details George discusses. But, lots of people do make their data more generally visible. It's ironic that employment laws are such that though "the public" may be invited to view such information, lucrative damages awards or settlements could be associated with doing so in the context of employment or potential employment.

As more and better communication and collaboration functions move to the Web (under non-negotiated, vendor-centric terms of use), what are our obligations as both tech- and ethics-savvy lawyers? I for one am not about to give up Gmail. So, what's the best practice?

Shun Web services, you simply can't control the data?


Use Web services only when you have specific, confidentiality and reliability guaranteeing service level agreements?


Use Web services liberally, but acquaint yourself with the applicable terms of use and make sure clients are amenable?

I was listening yesterday to the terrific CalacanisCast interview with Dan Albritton of iminlikewithyou.com, and was struck yet again by the way indicia of reputation, trustworthiness, and credibility are shifting and quantifying. I'm not sure what tomorrow's AV rating will look like, but I suspect it will be less subjective, more egalitarian, and more task-oriented.

The conference call Mike Madison and I recorded earlier this week in anticipation of our session at Community 2.0 (more here and here) is now available as part of the Bag and Baggage Podcast or from the Future of Communities blog.  We talked about:

• Defining community and loosely-joined individuals and interest groups
• Community goals and governance (or lack thereof)
• External innovation communities such as Procter & Gamble's and ownership issues
• Intellectual and liability concerns for company-owned or associated communities
• Whether an initiative similar to the Creative Commons movement has or is in the process of emerging
• Ownership issues and risk-minimization around products or services that emerge from external ideas
• Variations on open source licenses
• Individual rights and protections for community contributors and participants
• Anonymity and accountability
• Nefarious community exploitation: gaming, hacking, spamming
• Trust and reputation management
• The use of trademark law to use and manage community involvement; selective enforcement, the expansion of certification marks
• Insurance industry mechanisms and models
• Defamation
• Company-sponsored (and owned) communities, and the actions taken by participants who find the terms and conditions of such initiatives too draconian
• "Innovator's dilemma" management and patent strategy and the tension between old, successful products and those developed with help from outsourced customer communities
• Personal data ownership and the Attention Trust

Our rescheduled conference call in anticipation of Community 2.0 (details here) takes place today at 1:00 p.m. PST/3:00 p.m. EST.  Call-in details are here, please join us if you are interested.

In connection with our session at the the upcoming Community 2.0 conference, law professor Mike Madison and I will be hosting a public conference call on Monday, February 26 beginning at 1:00 p.m. PST, and we'd love your participation to help us hone in on the ownership considerations (IP; attention; identity), and issues of governance and liability, most critical to the creation, maintenance, and long-term health of business communities.  The call will be recorded and made available as a podcast from The Future of Communities blog.  You can join us as follows:

From Skype: +990008275785861

From a regular phone (long distance costs apply):
US: 1-605-475-8590

In Europe, call:
Germany 01805 00 7620
UK 0870 738 0763

The Conference Room Number: 5785861

Hope to chat with you then.

(Cross-posted to Bag and Baggage and Lawgarithms) 

[Update, Monday 2/26 @ 1:15 p.m.:] Unfortunately, we had problems with the conferencing service lined up to support this, so are having to reschedule. I'll post the new date, time, and call-in details once they're available, sorry for the delay.

Attorney and Chicago area blogger Mazyar M. Hedayat has drafted and released a blogging policy for the DuPage County Bar Association, "as well as any committee, firm, or bar association thinking of establishing blogs or wikis in order to foster communication with their members or the public." It is a concise nine points in length, and I like every one of them:

#1 know and follow bar association guidelines for conduct, as well as the rules of good legal writing. no need to use Blue Book citations, but be accurate in your posts: others will look to them as a source of information and news, if not actual research.

#2 be mindful of what you write. remember that you have an audience.

#3 identify yourself and write in first person. make it clear that you are not necessarily speaking for the bar association as a whole. be sure to disclose any information necessary to keep your statements from being misleading. use the following disclaimer on your blog or wiki with respect to all posts:

#4 respect copyright and fair use. do not plagiarize. give credit where due by citing to the author of a statement or passage.

#5 do not reveal confidential information that could result in liability to yourself, your committee, other bar association members, or the bar association itself.

#6 do not comment on active cases or client matters by name except with the approval of those referred to in the post.

#7 do not use ethnic slurs, insults, or obscenity. Avoid writing about inflammatory topics solely to pique prurient interests.

#8 always try to add to a discussion constructively and ultimately to add value. do not let your ego get in the way. you are here for the good of the bar association after all.

#9 have fun. a blog or wiki can be loads of fun and a terrific way to share the best of your committee with the world.

This might sound a bit acronym-soupy and cryptic, but the proverbial lightbulb is over my head at the moment, and I think it will have more impact if you attempt to understand why yourself rather than having me explain. So first, please listen to the current episode of the Gillmor Gang:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

Then: consider how a virtual law firm (or a very forward thinking conventional one) might be in the perfect position to leapfrog ahead by eliminating the CRM (customer relationship management) line item from its technology and marketing budgets, and instead adopting a client driven, "vendor relationship management" approach to business development.

It has been fascinating in the last several years to watch what has unfolded as the world's first online war. The fact that stories can be and are told and read globally by representatives of all of the parties involved — journalists, soldiers, natives to occupation zones — has fundamentally changed the way public opinion develops (and thus, at least to some extent, the way strategic policy is formed).

But for those in the military, as is true of so much they do, their online activities take place in an environment of uncertainty and danger. As the Jacksonville Daily News reports, though use of tools like MySpace is increasingly common, "DoD does not currently have a specific 'blogging' policy." This can leave soldiers like Matt Austin and his family and friends wondering what exactly has led to the curtailing of activities that provide a thin yet powerful lifeline home.

There's an excellent article at APC Magazine, warning businesses who lock down their Internet access that they're in danger of losing employees. But that's not all they're in danger of losing. There's a reason "digital natives" are so reliant on the 'Net they will resort to elaborate and policy-violating workarounds: they get things done there. They knowledge-gather. They connect. They market. They produce. What's at stake for businesses who fail to grok this goes far beyond recruiting and employee retention. I give any such outfit five years of soulless survival, at the outside. (Via Techmeme)

Ed Poll has a piece in the ABA's Law Practice Today on why associates are so dissatisfied. He says law firms have three fundamental defects:

• a flawed business model;
• a flawed financial focus; and
• flawed human resource strategies.

(Via Genie Tyburski) The world's hothouses are incapable of housing enough fresh lobby flowers to make it ok to let these kinds of issues fester.

I'm going to be offline for a week or so wanted to sprinkle these out there:

• Ari Kaplan, Lawyer Bloggers, Fact or Fiction?: "There are other explanations for why blogging is relatively scarce in large firms."
• Victoria Pynchon, BLAWGS:Your Clients are Reading. . . but you're not writing . . .: "[S]harpen up your blog skills to reach the speciality audience that will support your legal practice for the next two or three decades. It might even help you remember why practice used to be so thrilling."
• Jeneane Sessum, Oh, I just got it!: "Sillies! Yes you can. Nine out of ten Human Beings even prefer it."

A colleague recently asked me what concrete steps I thought an organization could take to help ensure the concepts underlying a blogging policy are actually understood and implemented. Bearing in mind I am so not an employment lawyer, I did have a few thoughts.

1. Blog. I suspect that companies pursuing their own blogging initiatives in addition to implementing policies intended to cover unsanctioned employee blogs will run into fewer problems with employee mistakes or misunderstandings. This is because the management and culture throughout the organization is bound to better grasp the process and related security and compliance issues. IMO, the best "training" occurs by example and widespread use.
2. Breathe. As I've pontificated here before, there's a pretty good case to be made that blogs and their ilk are actually the least risky form of corporate communication. If a company adequately gets across the reasons it expects certain employee conduct with regard to external communications, confidential information, and technology use, blogs, etc. are at least as "safe" as email and the phone; in fact, because people are more likely to understand up front these technologies are designed to accomplish wide and persistent information distribution, people are more likely to approach their use with caution and respect.
3. Mix. Organizations need to make sure their P.R./marketing and legal arms are communicating about how employees should be relaying work related information to third parties or the world at large, and they need to have an open-eyed appreciation of all the ways people might be or are using technology to do so. Brace yourself: P.R. and legal goals just might compete. Management needs to understand those conflicts and decide what resolution best fits what they're trying to accomplish (and what the law insists they accomplish).

I've finally been getting around to reading some back issues of Wired Magazine this weekend, which is always a worthwhile thing to do. (My regular magazine reading consists of: Wired, Technology Review, Popular Science, Fast Company, MacAddict — Dennis, you should subscribe to this, it will take your MacBook usage and enjoyment to new heights — and any of the free, locally ad-supported, parent-focused pubs available at the grocery store and My Gym. Put that in your demographic pipe and smoke it.) There, I may have found an answer to Dennis' recent lament, "I doubt that anyone has more trouble with or dislikes cell phone service more than I do." It's the MVNO, "mobile virtual network operator." What I do know thanks to Wired — Sky Dayton Gets Mobile — is that MVNOs, which piggy back on the carriers' spectrum and resell wireless services under their own name, will be a breath of fresh air to those frustrated by the products, features, and plans available from the big boys in the world of cellular services. What I don't know (and I'd love it if someone could enlighten me) is whether MVNOs, in addition to satisfying our longing for variety and flexibility, can do anything to offer improved reliability and/or speed; since their service backbone is the infrastructure of the existing cellular networks, they may just be putting lipstick on a pig.

The Wired article is several months old now (January oops, March; reading January now), and though it got me thorougly jazzed to own a Helio phone named after Y.T. from Snow Crash, it looks like only Hiro ultimately got the nod, and then with a spelling change (*sigh*). Ah well, it still is a terribly attractive notion to hitch one's cellular service wagon to a company that thinks of itself as "a gang of miltant consumers who barricade themselves inside a carrier's headquarters and refuse to leave until they get what they want." Though Helio is clearly targeting someone younger than me with more free time (or maybe a different way of looking at it is they're going after those inclined to post to Slashdot and Digg rather than just follow along), I find the whole notion refreshing, and look forward to more — whether from Helio or another MVNO.

Great marketing partnership for MySpace by the way. Though I'd probably never create a MySpace page on my own, if my phone were well integrated with it I just might. Also: when was the last time you encountered a cellular service provider with a blog?

More:

• Engadget, Helio Launches
• Engadget, Interview with Sky Dayton
• Gizmodo, Helio Here
• Helio, In The News

Our co-blogger Dennis Kennedy is quoted today in the New York Times: Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply. Dennis' interesting, and I'm sure far more nuanced, discussion with reporter Anna Bahney was distilled down to a truth about modern attitudes toward personal values and employment — "It's like, 'This is who I am. Consequences are what they are. I'll go work for someone who doesn't have a problem with it.'" Just as she missed the chance to round out her piece with more of Dennis' well-considered insights on this topic, the reporter missed the opportunity to tell the more accurate, important, and complicated story. Specifically, Ms. Bahney took the approach that the issue of individuals, their blogs, and their employers, is one of youth culture vs. Killjoy Lawyer III and co. E.g.:

[T]he line between what is public and what is private is increasingly fuzzy for young people comfortable with broadcasting nearly every aspect of their lives on the Web, posting pictures of their grandmother at graduation next to one of them eating whipped cream off a woman's belly. For them, shifting from a like-minded audience of peers to an intergenerational, hierarchical workplace can be jarring.

(Emphasis added.) While I appreciate the clever juxtaposition, and the point that there undeniably is a generation gap between the online mores of under-thirty-somethings and their elders, to suggest that boundary blurring of this sort is an issue unique to the young is to ignore at least the last six years of Web-enabled communications. And to note almost in passing that "some bloggers" say "[a] blog and a job don't necessarily have to clash," is to ignore at least three years worth (and counting) of seismic shift in corporate attitudes toward communications with the outside world. Yes, it's a slow change. But to suggest the change isn't happening — "No Bloggers Need Apply" — misses the boat, and here, I fear, resulted in an alarmist headline and a story that attempted to paint the varied picture of today's business attitudes and relationships with a two-color palette.

[Update:] Slashdotters weigh in.

Paul McNamara at Network World thinks this post by Marquette law professor Eric Goldman, critiquing recent lawsuits against Yahoo!, may be defamatory, because the post says Professor Goldman "think[s] these lawsuits are nothing more than a shakedown for cash," and calls the plaintiffs "extortionists." According to Mr. McNamara, "[Professor Goldman's] words practically scream libel." But, as Mr. McNamara clarifies, a lawyer for the Media Law Resource Center assessed things as follows:

In doing a quick search, I found court decisions holding both ways when dealing with similar accusations of 'extortion,' ... The legal issue would likely be whether the statements were actual imputations of a crime, or were 'rhetorical hyperbole,' essentially a statement of opinion, not of fact. The former could be considered libelous, while the latter could not.

Also notable is an observation from one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Thomas More Marrone, about the amplification role the Web adds to the mix: "It's like a guy standing on a street corner talking to his friends except he's writing it down and disseminating it to hundreds, thousands, millions of people."

The moral, I suppose, is that if you're going to use an online medium to discuss others' potentially wrongful acts (and there's no getting around that a blog or podcast is an attractive place for commenting on disturbing conduct), a little attention to phrasing and characterization can wind up going a long way. (See also these discussions of the limited nature of the fair reporting privilege.)

Employment lawyer James Erwin offers Six Steps Help Ensure At-Work Blogs Are An Asset:

1. Expressly include blogging within the same rules that govern acceptable use of email and Internet;
2. Prohibit employees from disclosing or discussing any confidential or proprietary information;
3. Remind employees that they are expected to be respectful of the company, its employees, its customers and its competitors; and are not to post material that contains harassing, discriminatory or threatening content, no matter when or where the blogging is conducted:
4. Require employees to use their real name, not an alias, and; employees must make it clear that the views they express online are their own and not those of the employer. This policy adds credibility to the blog, as it will be viewed by readers as an independent source of information;
5. Require that any reader responses to a blog be edited for profanity, harassing, discriminatory or threatening content directed toward the company, its employees, its customers, and its competitors; and
6. Create an agreement with each blogger as to the purpose of the blog, the amount of company time you will allow the blogger to devote to the practice, and any necessary restrictions regarding overtime compensation for off-site blogging.

Interesting. As far as I know the overtime issue has not really surfaced