<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"

xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssMod
ule">

<channel>
<title>Between Lawyers</title>
<link>/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</link>
<description>technology + culture + law</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>dmk@denniskennedy.com</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-04-08T18:23:30-05:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34" />
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>

<item>
<title>Between Lawyers - Recent Podcasts (Dennis M. Kennedy)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2007/04/08/between_lawyers_recent_podcasts.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Members of the Between Lawyers blog can be heard in a number of recent podcasts.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.inter-alia.net">Tom Mighell</a> and <a href="http://www,denniskennedy.com/blog/">Dennis Kennedy</a> have posted the <a href="http://tkmr.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=201386">latest episode #5</a> of <a href="http://tkmr.libsyn.com/">The Kennedy-Mighell Report</a>, in which they cover the recent ABA TECHSHOW, legal technology trends for 2007, current developments in electronic discovery, and their upcoming book on collaboration tools for lawyers. </p>

<p><a href="http://bgbg.blogspot.com">Denise Howell</a> has posted the latest episode of <a href="http://www.twit.tv/twil">This Week in Law</a>, which includes fellow regular <a href="http://www.ernietheattorney.net/ernie_the_attorney/">Ernie Svenson</a>. An earlier episode feature Between Lawyers' <a href="http://www.schwimmerlegal.com">Marty Schwimmer</a>.</p>

<p><br />
Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/legal+technology" rel="tag">legal technology</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/podcast" rel="tag">podcast</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/electronic+discovery" rel="tag">electronic discovery</a> <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/between+lawyers" rel="tag">between lawyers</a><br />
</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">72200@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Podcasting</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2007-04-08T18:23:30-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Podcast on the law of business communities (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2007/03/09/podcast_on_the_law_of_business_communities.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The conference call <a href="http://madisonian.net/archives/author/mike-madison/">Mike Madison</a> and I recorded earlier this week in anticipation of our session at <a href="http://www.community2-0con.com/">Community 2.0</a> (more <a href="http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2007/02/24/join_us_monday_for_a_public_conference_call_on_the_law_of_business_communities.php">here</a> and <a href="http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2007/03/07/take_two_public_conference_call_on_the_law_of_business_communities.php">here</a>) is now available as <a href="http://bgbg.blogspot.com/bgbgcast/2007/03/20070309-show-notes.html">part of the Bag and Baggage Podcast</a> or <a href="http://www.futureofcommunities.com/2007/03/08/recording-of-the-conference-call-with-legal-experts-denise-howell-and-mike-madison/">from the Future of Communities blog</a>.&nbsp; We talked about:</p> <ul> <li>Defining community and loosely-joined individuals and interest groups</li> <li>Community goals and governance (or lack thereof)</li> <li>External innovation communities such as Procter &amp; Gamble&#39;s and ownership issues</li> <li>Intellectual and liability concerns for company-owned or associated communities</li> <li>Whether an initiative similar to the Creative Commons movement has or is in the process of emerging</li> <li>Ownership issues and risk-minimization around products or services that emerge from external ideas</li> <li>Variations on open source licenses</li> <li>Individual rights and protections for community contributors and participants</li> <li>Anonymity and accountability</li> <li>Nefarious community exploitation: gaming, hacking, spamming</li> <li>Trust and reputation management</li> <li>The use of trademark law to use and manage community involvement; selective enforcement, the expansion of certification marks</li> <li>Insurance industry mechanisms and models</li> <li>Defamation</li> <li>Company-sponsored (and owned) communities, and the actions taken by participants who find the terms and conditions of such initiatives too draconian</li> <li>&quot;Innovator&#39;s dilemma&quot; management and patent strategy and the tension between old, successful products and those developed with help from outsourced customer communities</li> <li>Personal data ownership and the Attention Trust</li> </ul>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">72109@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>BL on Tour</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2007-03-09T16:50:31-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Take Two:  Public Conference Call On The Law Of Business Communities (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2007/03/07/take_two_public_conference_call_on_the_law_of_business_communities.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Our rescheduled conference call in anticipation of <a href="http://www.community2-0con.com/">Community 2.0</a> (<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=82">details here</a>) takes place today at 1:00 p.m. PST/3:00 p.m. EST.&nbsp; Call-in details are <a href="http://www.futureofcommunities.com/2007/03/05/legal-issues-around-communities-take-two/">here</a>, please join us if you are interested.</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">72102@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>BL on Tour</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2007-03-07T12:48:24-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Join us Monday for a public conference call on the law of business communities (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2007/02/24/join_us_monday_for_a_public_conference_call_on_the_law_of_business_communities.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/images/community2.0.jpg" border="0" hspace="5" width="278" height="105" /> <br /></p><p>In connection with our session at the the upcoming <a href="http://www.community2-0con.com/?page_id=4">Community 2.0 conference</a>, law professor <a href="http://madisonian.net/archives/author/mike-madison/">Mike Madison</a> and I will be hosting a public conference call on Monday, February 26 beginning at 1:00 p.m. PST, and we&#39;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.&nbsp; The call will be recorded and made available as a podcast from <a href="http://www.futureofcommunities.com/">The Future of Communities</a> blog.&nbsp; You can join us as follows:</p>
<p><em>From Skype: +990008275785861</em> </p><p><em>From a regular phone (long distance costs apply):<br /> US: 1-605-475-8590</em></p> <p><em>In Europe, call:<br /> Germany  01805 00 7620<br /> UK            0870 738 0763</em></p> <p><em>The Conference Room Number: 5785861  </em></p><p>Hope to chat with you then.<br /></p><p>(Cross-posted to <a href="http://bgbg.blogspot.com/">Bag and Baggage</a> and <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/">Lawgarithms</a>)&nbsp;</p>

<p>[<strong>Update</strong>, 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.</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">72070@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>BL on Tour</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2007-02-24T01:18:14-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Julicial Eloquence (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/10/16/julicial_eloquence.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Julie Hilden of FindLaw's Writ neatly pummels into dust any credible argument for regulating lawyer blogs as advertising:  <a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20061016.html">Are Lawyers' Blogs Protected by the First Amendment? Why State Bar Regulation of Law Blogs As "Advertising" Would Be Elitist and Reductive</a>.  "If we want the best arguments to win in court, why shouldn't we let the best bloggers win clients, too? State bars should affirmatively encourage legal blogs, rather than chilling them by regulating them as if they were no more significant than a banner on the back of a bus."</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67431@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-10-16T18:27:55-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Forecast:  Hazy (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/10/09/forecast_hazy.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1160039129480">Unless you're our colleague Ernie</a>, that is:  "I don't want to put any disclaimers on my blog," said Ernest Svenson, a blogger better know as Ernie the Attorney. "It's a buy-in to a mindset that I want to go away."  Well said, as to what should by rights be able to remain <em>unsaid</em>.</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">66950@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-10-09T00:23:46-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Yet More Blawger-Unfriendly Lawyer Advertising Rules Contemplated (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/09/15/yet_more_blawgerunfriendly_lawyer_advertising_rules_contemplated.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>This time in Marty's jurisdiction.   See <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060915-7753.html">New York courts may keep lawyers from blogging</a>, via <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/">Recording Industry vs. The People</a>.  [<strong>Update</strong>:]  Also, <a href="http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060915StatesDefineLawBlogsAsAdvertising.html">States Define Law Blogs As Advertising</a>.</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">65558@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-09-15T17:48:24-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>If the NY Times Broke The Law, Indict It (Lawyer X)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/06/28/if_the_ny_times_broke_the_law_indict_it.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>If not, what's your point?</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">60872@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blogging Legal Developments</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-06-28T09:57:10-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blog In Peace (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/06/09/blog_in_peace.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>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 <em>so</em> not an employment lawyer, I did have a few thoughts.</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Blog.</strong>  I suspect that <a href="http://www.socialtext.net/bizblogs/index.cgi)">companies pursuing their own blogging initiatives</a> 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 &quot;training&quot; occurs by example and widespread use.</li>
<li><strong>Breathe.</strong>  As I've <a href="http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/03/06/blogs_least_risky_of_all.php
">pontificated here before</a>, 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 &quot;safe&quot; 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.</li>
<li><strong>Mix.</strong>  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 <em>insists</em> they accomplish).</li>
</ol>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">59822@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blogging Policies</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-06-09T23:06:47-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bloggership Papers (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/05/22/bloggership_papers.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Thirteen papers from the recent <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/bloggership">Bloggership</a> conference are available <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?form_name=journalbrowse&amp;journal_id=890371">from the Social Science Research Network</a>.  Topics include:  <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901120">free speech and privacy</a>; <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=898168">transforming legal scholarship</a>; <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=898013">libel</a>; and &quot;<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=898046">Blogging While Untenured and Other Extreme Sports</a>.&quot;</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">58404@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-05-22T14:03:13-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>More Gonzo Legal Marketing &apos;06 (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/05/18/more_gonzo_legal_marketing_06.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Looking for <a href="http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/05/09/law_firms_in_wikipedia.php">another</a> unique, technologically attuned way to market yourself, firm, and/or practice?  You could always try <a href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6070533.html">gaming MySpace</a>.  <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=90">Or Digg</a>, for that matter.  (Please know I'm just kidding, and think those who game social networking sites are a life form on the same sub-primate order as spammers.) </p>

<p>[Technorati tag:  <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gonzo+marketing" rel="tag">gonzo marketing</a>]</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">58232@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-05-18T18:04:42-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>Know It When You See It? (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/05/17/know_it_when_you_see_it.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.masscomm.txstate.edu/mcfaculty/walsh-f/walsh-f.html">Frank Walsh</a> examines <a href="http://www.prsa.org/viewNews.cfm?pNewsID=298">Legal decisions that help define who a journalist is now</a> for the <a href="http://www.prsa.org/">Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)</a>.</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">58149@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-05-17T16:54:10-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>(Cue Tattoo:)  Defame!  Defame! (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/05/15/cue_tattoo_defame_defame.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=buzzblog">Paul McNamara</a> at <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/">Network World</a> <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/5794">thinks</a> <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/05/yahoo_syndicati.htm">this post</a> by Marquette law professor <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/">Eric Goldman</a>, critiquing recent lawsuits against Yahoo!, may be defamatory, because the post says Professor Goldman &quot;think[s] these lawsuits are nothing more than a shakedown for cash,&quot; and calls the plaintiffs &quot;extortionists.&quot;  According to Mr. McNamara, &quot;[Professor Goldman's] words practically scream libel.&quot;  But, as Mr. McNamara clarifies, a lawyer for the <a href="http://www.medialawresourcecenter.com/">Media Law Resource Center</a> assessed things as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Also notable is an observation from one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, <a href="http://www.feldmanshepherd.com/team/marrone.htm">Thomas More Marrone</a>, about the amplification role the Web adds to the mix:  &quot;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.&quot;</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2001/march/nw0302-5.htm">these</a> <a href="http://www.studentpress.org/acp/trends/~law0203college.html">discussions</a> of the limited nature of the fair reporting privilege.)</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">57977@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blogging Legal Developments</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-05-15T14:27:20-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>No No Na &apos;Net (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/04/30/no_no_na_net.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There are a host of reasons (and probably a host of laws) why you wouldn't expect a prosecutor in a criminal case to blog tacky comments about opposing counsel and potentially inadmissible and prejudicial information about a defendant.  Notwithstanding, some <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1146139204085">recent events</a> have prompted the San Francisco D.A.'s office to specify &quot;that criminal cases and office business should not be mentioned on the Internet.&quot;</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">56851@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-30T18:24:07-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item>
<title>First Amendment Machines (Denise Howell)</title>
<link>http://betweenlawyers.corante.com/archives/2006/04/26/first_amendment_machines.php</link>
<description><![CDATA[<p>In his essay <a href="http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/01/21/berk_essy.html">Bloggers vs. Journalists is Over</a>, <a href="http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/">Jay Rosen</a> famously observed, &quot;A blog, you see, is a little First Amendment machine.&quot;  <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/">The First Amendment Center</a> explores the permutations of this reality in its <a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/press/topic.aspx?topic=blogging">piece on blogging</a>.</p>]]></description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">56630@/home/corante/public_html/betweenlawyers/</guid>
<dc:subject>Blink &amp;#8250;</dc:subject>
<dc:date>2006-04-26T18:55:34-05:00</dc:date>
</item>

<creativeCommons:license>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/</creativeCommons:license>
</channel>
</rss>