InfoCamp is an unconference about user experience, information architecture, user-centered design, librarianship, information management & related fields. Learn more on the InfoCamp wiki.

I am not a computer geek and, chances are, neither are you. I did not go with FOSS on my own, any more than I tell clients to try their own lawsuits or do their own brain surgery. Although loading Linux onto your computer is now close to "one-click," the occasional glitch -- particularly with laptops -- can make you feel like a pro se litigant. Some companies, like EmperorLinux, sell laptops preloaded with FOSS. The other option (the one I chose) was simply to hire an expert -- someone who knows what she is doing -- to put together the right platform for me.

Now if you balk at the notion of paying for technical expertise then, my friend, you are in the wrong profession. Lawyers are like software programmers. Lawyers charge for our knowledge in running the legal code that runs our lives; programmers charge for their knowledge in running the digital code that runs our computers. The code for FOSS, like the law, is free; and, like the law, FOSS can be incomprehensible to the average layperson. What clients pay for is knowledge, expertise and experience about how to "hack" it and make it do what you want it to do. The cost of installing free and open source software was, for me, no more than the cost of proprietary software, but with the added benefit that the end product is cleaner, more reliable and more stable than the Brand X system that I used to use.

Here is the full announcement from WLA:

SEATTLE – Copyright is the primary means of protecting an artist’s rights in his or her works. However, understanding the nuances of copyright law and the implications the law has on using others’ works, or allowing others to use yours, can be daunting, and has led to increasing criticism of the U.S. copyright system as a whole.

In 2001, Creative Commons was established with the goal of making it easier for people to share and build upon the work of others, and it has since developed a variety of model licenses that can be used when licensing one’s works. In this presentation, attorneys Jefferson Coulter, Nick Mitchell and Brian Rowe will discuss Creative Commons licenses and their use in the arts.

The presentation will begin with a brief discussion of copyright law and copyright licensing, and the policy considerations that inform copyright law in the U.S. The discussion will then turn to Creative Commons, with an examination of the reasons Creative Commons was established, what Creative Commons licenses are (and are not), why you may or may not want to use them, and important things to consider if you do. A question and answer session will follow.

DATE:
Tuesday, September 22, 2009

TIME:
Noon – 2:00 pm (registration begins at 11:30, brownbag lunches welcome)

LOCATION:
4Culture
101 Prefontaine Pl S
Seattle, Washington 98104

FEE: In advance: $35 Attorneys and Paralegals; $10 Artists and Students. At the door: $40 Attorneys and Paralegals; $15 Artists and Students

REGISTRATION:
To register, visit Brown Paper Tickets, http://brownpapertickets.com/producer/3042 , or phone 24/7 at 800.838.3006. To pay at the door, RSVP to Washington Lawyers for the Arts at 206.328.7053. Please note that the event is subject to cancellation; visit http://www.thewla.org/ or call 206.328.7053 for more information.

MORE INFORMATION: To view the full event information, select this link.

Here is the text of the Improve Pacer Petition:

We ask the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to improve PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) by enhancing the authenticity, usability and availability of the system.

We the undersigned, urge the Administrative Office of the US Courts (AO) to make the following changes to the PACER system:
* For verification and reliability, the AO should digitally sign every document put into PACER using readily available technology.
* PACER needs to be much more readily accessible if it is to be usable for research, education, and the practice of law. Improved accessibility includes both lowering the costs for using PACER and enhancing the web interfaces.
* Depository libraries should also have free access to PACER.
Thank you.

I agree with these basic points but believe the petition could go further. Below is my comment from when I signed the petition:

Access to primary legal materials is a fundamental human right. We cannot be a nation of laws if the proceedings of our courts are distributed at high cost, creating an economic barrier for access to justice.

I believe the same thing of all case law and law review articles. As long as the law is locked away, we will never have equal access to justice.

Recent press reports indicate that Apple has declined to approve the Google Voice application for the iPhone and has removed related (and previously approved) third-party applications from the iPhone App Store.1 In light of pending FCC proceedings regarding wireless open access (RM-11361) and handset exclusivity(RM-11497), we are interested in a more complete understanding of this situation. To that end, please provide answers to the following questions by close of business on Friday, August 21, 2009.

1. Why did Apple reject the Google Voice application for iPhone and remove related third-party applications from its App Store?  In addition to Google Voice, which related third-party applications were removed or have been rejected?  Please provide the specific name of each application and the contact information for the developer.

2. Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications?  If the latter, please
describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice.  Are there any contractual conditions or non-contractual understandings with AT&T that affected Apple’s decision in this matter?

3. Does AT&T have any role in the approval of iPhone applications generally (or in certain cases)?  If so, under what circumstances, and what role does it play?  What roles are specified in the contractual provisions between Apple and AT&T (or anynon-contractual understandings) regarding the consideration of particular iPhone applications?

4. Please explain any differences between the Google Voice iPhone application and any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications that Apple has approved for the iPhone.  Are any of the approved VoIP applications allowed to operate on AT&T’s 3G network?

5. What other applications have been rejected for use on the iPhone and for what reasons?  Is there a list of prohibited applications or of categories of  applications that is provided to potential vendors/developers?  If so, is this posted on the iTunes website or otherwise disclosed to consumers?

6. What are the standards for considering and approving iPhone applications?   What is the approval process for such applications (timing, reasons for rejection, appeal process, etc.)?  What is the percentage of applications that are rejected?  What are the major reasons for rejecting an application?

Disclosure, I am working at PK under a grant through Google's Public Policy Fellow program. I also own an iPhone that I have intermittently jail broken for just this reason.  I have a freedom to tinker with my own devices and to choose what apps i use on it. Unfortunately this could make me a criminal under the DMCA... Platforms should be neutral, I do not want Linux or Windows telling me what word processor I can use. Why should a phone be different?

The Public Index, a site to study and discuss the proposed Google Book
Search settlement. Here, you can browse and annotate the proposed
settlement, section-by-section. Just use the table of contents or the
search box at the right to get started. In addition, you can:

* Study our reading room of lawsuit documents
* Join the conversation in our forums
* Draft an amicus brief to the court on the wiki

The Public Index is a project of the Public-Interest Book Search
Initiative and the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New
York Law School. We are a group of professors, students, and
volunteers who believe that the Google Book Search lawsuit and
settlement deserve a full, careful, and thoughtful public discussion.
The Public Index is a site for people from all points of view to learn
from each other about the settlement and join together to make their
voices heard in the public debate.

The innovative students are: Benjamin Burge, Stephanie Figueroa, Leanne Gabinelli, Cynthia Grady, Dominic Mauro, Marc Miller, Deva Roberts, and Andrew Smith. The site was funded through a Microsoft Grant.

This video reminded me of working in the legal arts clinic my last semester of law school.  Many of the artists that would come to the clinic were doing creative projects that included some fair use or even a lot of fair use.  I wanted to give advice that their work was likely fair use and thus protected 1st Amendment speech, the advice given was often much more pessimistic and even once painfully crushing to the artist.  These are smaller artist that want to spend their days creating, not trying to clear rights on transformative works from rights holder that will not even return their calls. As a lawyers you are trained to minimize risk, which unfortunately is interpreted as avoiding fair use all together. American's Center for Social Media is trying to change this norm by helping communities create or document their best practices related to fair use and enable artist to use their free speech rights.

Here in DC there is a lot of talk going on related to the Google Book Settlement. I am most concerned about competition, orphaned works and copyright licensing of works under copyright. Although every time I talk to someone about the settlement privacy comes up. The settlement could make Google an online library of sorts that is not constrained by privacy laws that libraries embrace. This Tuesday, Alexander Macgillivray, Deputy General Counsel at Google and soon to be General Counsel at Twitter, spoke at Knowledge Ecology International and pointed out that the settlement does not cover privacy at all. His justification for this was that rights holders, authors, and publishers, are not the correct people to write a privacy policy with. This caused quite a rise out of EPIC's Executive Director Marc Rotenberg who I respect as one of the leaders in protecting privacy. I happen to agree with Alex here that the privacy discussion needs to happen with users and privacy rights orgs not with book publishers. Although I think EPIC's fears are not unfounded without some law or the settlement keeping google and other users of the registry in check how can we ensure privacy.  I think the answer is legislation not the settlement but I do not see this as likely before the settlement goes into effect.

For those people that want to get the best information out on privacy and the settlement check out Epics coverage:

B. The Settlement Rarely Addresses Privacy Explicitly

The Google Book Search Settlement, as a general rule, fails to explicitly address privacy. The only reference to privacy in the entire settlement states that all data provided to Google by members of the Settlement Class "shall be subject to a Registry privacy policy." (§ 6.6(vi)). However, this portion of the settlement does not specify the details of this policy. Additionally, this clause only addresses the privacy of rightsholder data. While the contemplated privacy policy could potentially provide privacy protections to authors' and publishers' personally identifiable information (PII), these protections are by no means guaranteed. The mere existence of a privacy policy does not guarantee privacy protections. The settlement also does not specify that any privacy protections will govern consumers' or library patrons' PII. Despite this, the settlement contemplates large-scale consumer usage of the Google Book Search through both its consumer purchase option and its institutional subscription feature.

Read more at EPIC's coverage of the google book settlement.

Here is Fail Blogs great response:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This post is in response to an email FAIL Blog received from an attorney representing Guinness World Records Limited.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thanks for writing us an email regarding the “Record Breaking Fail”. Unfortunately, douchebaggy cyber-bullying emails will only bring upon you more shame on your house. I am also resisting the urge to write this email in ALL CAPS.

I believe it is the duty of FAIL Blog(TM) to call out organizations when they encourage the public to do such things as “Break the record” for the “Most Individuals Killed In A Terrorist Act”. We firmly believe that our publication of your fail is protected under the concepts of fair use, commentary and non-trademark use. Please RTFM and we welcome you to teh interwebs.

Since we at FAIL Blog(TM) don’t have a legal defense department, we have complied with your request to remove the trademarked term and logo from the original image. We have used the “naughty bits filter” on the image to secure your naughty, naughty, trademark assertions. However, we have posted your email so that our audience can see why we had to remove the name of the failer from the image. I hope that this is the outcome you have expected as now NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW THAT GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS LIMITED HAS FAILED.

The full legal response can be read here: icanhaz.com/legalresponse

Cheers,
FAIL Blog

Noon to 1:30 pm (registration begins at 11:30 am.)

LOCATION:
Stoel Rives LLP
600 University St, Ste 3600

Seattle, Washington 98101
Click here for directions

Note: Unfortunately, we cannot provide comped parking. We suggest taking a Metro bus. Here is a link to Metro Transit trip planner.

FEE:
In advance: $35 attorneys and paralegals; $10 artists and students
At the door: $40 attorneys and paralegals; $15 artists and students

REGISTRATION: