Blogger’s new templates: Contempo, Soho, Emporio and Notable

 

For a while now, I’ve been increasingly conscious that the design of Law Actually has become a bit long in the tooth. I’ve occasionally tinkered with the look and feel of my blog over the last few years, but there’s been no escaping the fact it was based on a (now pretty primitive) blogger design from six or seven years ago. The last major refresh I’d made to the design was in 2012. Yikes.

I made a few minor changes earlier this year when I suddenly remembered I used to do (and quite enjoy) something called blogging. Don’t look at me like that: apparently, blogging simply isn’t such a big thing any more.  Despite, the need for a visual change, I rather sadly recognised that it was well beyond my web design skills to produce something half-decent myself. Although blogger templates are available from third parties, they tend to be infested with problems – including advert placements and other awkward elements which are difficult to remove or modify. After a few very disappointing attempts to find a free blogger template from elsewhere, I gave up.

Given that Google hadn’t released a new blogger template since 2011, I figured something new might be coming before long. Despite a bit of digging on the blogger blog – that’s almost mind-bendingly recursive, isn’t it – I didn’t find any indication of when this might be.

I was truly delighted, therefore, when, earlier today, I visited blogger to check out my recent visitor stats and saw that Google had made a range of stunning new themes available.

The new theme categories – called Contempo, Soho, Emporio and Notable – are all stunning, modern and functional. I’ve tried a bunch on Law Actually and I had a really tough time deciding which to pick.  That really speaks to the quality of options to choose from – all for what is, let’s not forget, a service that Google makes available for free. I’m no Google fanboi – heck, I use Bing in some sort or perverse act of contrarianism (or is it self-harm?) – but there’s no denying they do some good stuff from time to time.

In the end, I went with a slightly modified version of the white Soho design. The acid test was my wife’s reaction when I first showed her the new theme: “wow, that a looks a bit more modern”, she said.

Enough said, I think.

We noticed you’re using an ad-blocker. Oh really?

Like any self-respecting web user, I’ve used ad-blocking extensions for years now - since at least 2006. There are some sites so peppered with ads that browsing them without an ad-blocker just isn’t viable (I’m thinking in particular of some F1 sites I like to check frequently). Some sites are so bad that if it came to a choice between visiting them without an ad-blocker, or not visiting at all, I’d pick the latter, frankly.

Intrusive web adverts are annoying. There’s no getting around that. Equally, though, I’m not so away-with-the-fairies that I don’t recognise that a lot of this nice stuff we’re used to accessing freely on the net has to be paid for by someone, somewhere. Ads are the obvious way of doing that, but the dynamics of this model have changed hugely over the years and are becoming, by degrees, harder to sustain. (So I hear anyway.)

The use of paywalls is becoming worryingly commonplace – both across web content in general and streaming media in particular – and this approach flies directly in the face of some of the key founding principles of the web. And in this increasingly confused and scary world we live in, I think the need for the web to respect the principle of giving information freedom is more important than ever.

In the last couple of years, an increasing number of websites feature code to check whether visitors have ad-blockers installed. Where an ad-blocker is detected, the visitor sees a message of thinly veiled emotional blackmail or, increasingly, out-and-out pleading, asking the visitor to disable their ad-blocking functionality or to whitelist the relevant website. Some sites even prevent you from reading the article until you do one of these two things.

Most news agencies have used this tactic for some time, but other types of sites are now following suit. Even the ten-a-penny technology sites which regurgitate already regurgitated non-news, FUD and trite observations are doing it. I know. You wouldn’t think they’d have the nerve to try to guilt-trip visitors into viewing ads.

Almost invariably, I ignore all pleas of whitelisting. The one exception I made was for the Guardian’s website. Hey, I have to get my do-gooding, left-wing libertarian kicks somehow.

The bottom line is that web ads need to be more palatable and less intrusive. If there weren’t so many of them and if they weren’t so damned distracting and annoying, visitors would be less inclined to block ads in the first place. It’s a bit like the situation a decade ago when copyright holders were rightly lampooned for over-charging for their content, not doing enough to make it easily-accessible to customers in innovative ways, while struggling to understand why many users were choosing to download content unlawfully using peer-to-peer file sharing software. Thankfully, we’ve seen a lot of progress on that front (think: Spotify, Netflix and Amazon Prime, for example).

Back to web ads. The ones which get most on my thrupnies adopt the shock ‘n’ awe approach in which banner ads abseil down from the top of the screen, bumping the page content asunder in unnerving jolts, with the lower page content then being flanked by further ads. As these then load, the page content re-renders again so your eyes are bouncing around the page trying to catch up and you’re quickly reduced to a quivering nervous wreck. It’s a bit like expecting web users to browse the web high on crystal meth. It’s unacceptable and it’s disrespectful to the site’s visitors. And it’s no wonder use of ad-blockers has skyrocketed in recent years.

So, please, ad-makers and sites which feature them: try and be a bit more subtle and less annoying. Else the chances are your ads being unblocked are pretty much nil. And if that happens, we’ll all end up losing in the longer term.

Safer internet day

Yep - it’s here again.

I see I was cautiously positive when I mentioned SID in post back in 2008, but I think there was a distinct undertone of scepticism if I’m frank.

But, nine years on, far from slipping into oblivion, it seems safer internet day is well and truly ‘a thing’.

I guess that’s good news. It’s not going to work miracles, but it’s a start. It’s an opportunity to get people to stop and think about what they’re doing when they use the internet – which can only be a good thing. But let’s not kid ourselves: there’s a huge amount of work needed to help people help themselves when making decisions about their online conduct. And that’s by no means confined to children.

I had a butchers at the safer internet day quiz earlier.  Hopefully, the majority of kids will regard the ‘correct’ answers as blindingly obvious. Or is that being recklessly optimistic?

The theme with many of the answers seems to be: if in doubt, run and tell an adult. That’s not bad advice, but it’s crucial that young people are made to feel involved in the decisions behind safe online actions so they can understand the reasoning behind it and start putting that to use in the future.

There comes a point when telling kids to ask an adult isn’t going to cut it.

Getting kids to flip their perspective on a situation and appreciate that online conduct can have just as direct and serious ‘real world’ consequences as offline actions is central to successfully tackling the problem.  Sadly, on this latter point, people seem to be just as ill-informed now as there were when I dubbed it the fallacy of the virtual veil nearly ten years ago.  And that’s pretty depressing.

Important Principles of Publishing Law

Guest Post

Although the basic principles of publishing law generally remain unchanged, the law that governs the publication of books, magazines, newspapers and – in particular - their digital equivalents is constantly evolving. This constant evolution is necessary now more than ever, due to the impact the internet has had on how material is distributed, and the increasing importance of digital copyright law. In today’s digital age, what is legal in one country may not be permitted in another, and this patchwork of very different sets of laws represents a real problem for authors and publishers throughout the world.

Unsurprisingly, the countries of the world have attempted to regulate this by means of international treaties. There is now the International Court of Justice at The Hague (mainly referred to for war crimes), and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However, these only operate in certain jurisdictions and their judgements are usually regional rather than global. There is no truly global International Court, and although many feel that the internet requires something similar, it appears to be a long way away from actually happening.

Copyright Law

Despite the aforementioned problems with the application of international publishing laws, copyright law is relatively well enforced globally. This is due to one of the world’s longest-running treaties, the Berne Copyright Convention of 1886, now acceded to by over 160 countries. The Berne Copyright Convention obliges members to apply reciprocal ‘national treatment’ in their own courts to works produced by members of other member states. The TRIPS Treaty also requires member states to enforce copyright effectively.

Copyright is a form of intellectual property that exists from the moment a work of creative, intellectual or artistic nature is created in a fixed, tangible form of expression (Ideas and information are not covered by copyright law – only the form and manner in which they are expressed is.). Copyright grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights to its use and distribution – usually for a limited time. In the case of works made for hire, the employer - not the creator of the work - is considered the author. Updated in 1988 and unchanged ever since, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 remains one of the key principles of publishing law.

Assignments & Licenses

An assignment of copyright is a transfer of ownership of the copyright. By assigning your copyright to another person or organisation, you are effectively providing them with the legal right to exploit the material however they wish. You will no longer own it; the recipient of the assignment will have full rights to the material. And if you publish your work after you have assigned it to another party, you are committing copyright infringement – even though you were the original author of the work.

If you grant someone a copyright license, you retain ownership of your copyright but give the other party permission to use some or all of your copyright rights. You may grant a publisher the rights to publish your work in print and/or as an ebook, but retain the right to create an audio version of your work. Any type of right can be retained or granted as required, which can allow the author of the work to profit by producing and distributing the work in other formats, or even expanding upon it.

Written Contracts

Almost all publishing agreements should be in writing. Whilst English law does allow for unwritten contracts, those contracts which involve assignment of copyright or a licence of copyright within the meaning of the legislation must be in writing. Even where a publishing agreement does not involve an assignment or license, getting the terms of the contract written down is always a good idea. A written agreement provides evidence that the contract actually exists, helps ensure that all parties are ‘on the same page’, reduces the risk of a legal dispute occurring and also helps with the resolution of a dispute should one arise.

Payments and Royalties

A publishing agreement will usually state methods of payments to the author, which are typically either by the payment of an agreed fee or by the payment of royalties. With royalty payments there may also be an advance, which will need to be earned-out before any royalty payments commence. Publishing contracts that are based on assignments of copyright usually include up-front, fee-based payments, while payments made under licences of copyright are often royalty-based. In practice, however, many publishing contracts combine assignments and royalties or licences and fees.

Infringement of Legal Rights

There are multiple ways in which an author’s legal rights can be infringed when a piece of work is published. For example, a work could infringe copyright, moral rights, database rights, trade mark rights, design rights, rights in passing off, or any other intellectual property rights. Because of this, it is vital that publishing companies fully research the work they are given to publish, and authors are fully aware of the rights they hold in their work.

ARK Group is a leading B2B publishing and events company providing leading products for the legal and information management markets. ARK Group’s information products help professionals and organisations work more intelligently by delivering reliable information and techniques that can be used to benchmark, develop and improve fundamental business processes and procedures.

Death in the digital age: managing digital assets

Sponsored Post

We all have scores of online accounts these days.  The value of the information associated with those accounts can be huge – both financially and in other, more nuanced ways.   Take, for instance, online storage services, to which years of photos or video footage (and the memories connected with that) can be uploaded. Or a blog with thousands of blog posts published over a period of years.  Until quite recently, this type of digital content hadn't been considered by those making wills, and even now it's the exception rather than the norm.

I’ve blogged previously about some of the difficulties associated with digital assets when someone dies.  As more and more aspects of our lives occur online, or at least have an online element, remembering to include digital assets when drafting wills becomes ever more important.

The Co-operative Funeralcare have published a report revealing that of the 94 per cent of UK adults who hold online accounts, 75 per cent of those have not considered or made arrangements for the management of their digital presence after they die. 

At best, omitting digital assets from a person’s will may leave a number of untidy loose ends.  That can bring with it additional anguish for those they leave behind - adding to their grief - and it can leave the administrators of their estate uncertain whether they are acting in accordance with the deceased’s wishes.  At worst, precious and irreplaceable memories could be lost forever - a heart-breaking prospect

Amongst other things, the Co-op’s report highlights the adverse impact that omitting digital assets is having on those who have been bereaved.  Some 78 per cent of those who have managed a loved one’s online accounts following their death report having experienced difficulties in winding up the account, and a fifth of those found it so difficult, they abandoned their attempts altogether.  

16 per cent of people surveyed for the report said they would want their next of kin to have access to their social accounts given the sentimental value associated with the data.  Even more interesting, 14 per cent of those surveyed stated they would want their families to stay in touch with the online contacts they had built up throughout their lifetime.

There’s a real financial impact, too.  The report found that the average UK adult accumulates personal digital capital such as music, films or books worth £265.  That means for the 500million online accounts and assets that exist throughout the UK, a staggering £17 billion worth of assets could be left ‘floating’ in cyberspace.  

Sam Kershaw, Director of Operations for The Co-operative Funeralcare, said: “Conversations about end of life  are never easy.  However, as we increasingly live and manage our lives online, communicating with a loved one about the accounts you hold and what you would want to happen to them may greatly help should they ever need to access, manage or close accounts on your behalf.” 

But the answer isn’t as straightforward as leaving log-in details and passwords set out in wills. James Antoniou, Head of Wills for the Co-operative Legal Services, acknowledged: “It is important that people are aware that they should never leave online passwords in their will as it can become a public document after death. Individuals can, however, leave details of the online accounts they hold in a sealed letter alongside their will and addressed to their executors to ensure that their digital lives are not missed, or forgotten about, once they have passed away.”

To help consumers plan for manage digital legacies, The Co-operative Funeralcare has developed a guide offering advice and information about managing and protecting online accounts and assets, as well as identifying the accounts of loved ones who have died.  The accompanying infographic can be viewed here.  

Further information is available at www.co-operativefuneralcare.co.uk

Video Links for Courts and the Legal Profession

Guest Post
In the past few years, it has become increasingly acceptable for Judges to receive evidence and testimonies from witnesses in both criminal and civil cases. A video conference is often referred to as a video link within the legal profession.

Here at Eyenetwork we’ve been assisting solicitors and barristers for many years, either providing public facilities for the witnesses overseas, or bridging service between the court and remote locations.

Many courts have installed video conference equipment, but pre-2000 when it was not so common, we were involved in setting up a ground breaking videoconference which created a legal precedent. Mander Hadley & Co, a Coventry based legal practice specialising in personal injury claims decided to use Eyenetwork to help set up a temporary courtroom based in Birmingham, that was complete with judge, clerk and the necessary legal, administrative and recording personnel. The video conference equipment was used to connect with a number of witnesses in Malaysia.

Paul Scott of Mander Hadley & Co said “this is a ground-breaking case. The judge found it easy to talk to the family and witnesses using the video link, and quickly put them at their ease. That was a significant benefit. He treated the occasion as though we were all in the same room, and this has to be another advantage of the videoconference.” Damages of £1million were paid to the claimant.

As many courtrooms now have video conference equipment installed it is not necessary to move the court and personnel to another location as in this instance. However the witnesses still do need to use a public video conference facility to link with the court. There are over 3000 of these public facilities around the world, they can be hired by the hour and a video conferencing services company such as Eyenetwork can arrange this.

We are often contacted by panicked interns or temporary staff who have been tasked with the job of finding a public facility but have no idea how to go about it. The process can be confusing especially when you have to liaise between the courts and other third parties who need to be involved.

How does it work?
The Judge must grant permission for a witness to give evidence via video link. Annex 3 to Practice Direction 32 provides useful guidance as to when video conferencing might be used, as well as providing detail on the process to be followed and technical considerations associated with giving evidence in that way. 

Giving evidence through a video link is typically considered suitable in cases where the following outcomes can be achieved as a result of using that technology:

• Savings in costs
• The avoidance of public disruption
• The facilitation of early listing.

In the past, video conferencing has been deemed suitable in cases which:

• Involve vulnerable parties - such as hospital patients or children
• Involve overseas parties
• Involve prisoners
• Are of a particularly urgent nature, in which the parties cannot readily attend court.

Once all the details (date, start time, duration) are agreed, a video conference facility convenient to the witness will need to be booked or if the witness is in a remote location, or unable to travel to a facility they can be connected from their own personal device such as a laptop or iPad. A test is always made prior to the date of the hearing, to assure good quality of sound and image. During the trial, the video link is monitored by specialists to resolve any issues that may arise.

The witness does not require any technical knowledge, they only need to be present and focus on their role in the hearing.

Connecting a witness remotely can also benefit their ability to give evidence. For some witnesses, travelling to the court and testifying can be a stressful experience, so giving evidence via video link can help to greatly reduce this, resulting in more relaxed witness and subsequently a better testimony. In the case of the Malaysian trial quoted above, as there were over 10 witnesses, as well as the financial cost of flying this number of people over, there would have been a high emotional cost returning to the country where a traumatic event took place.

Connecting with Courts
In most cases, connections to courts are made via a bridging service. The bridging service will connect sites on differing ISDN and IP networks as well as ensuring all sites are successfully connected. It tests with the sites pre-trial and provides technical support to resolve any issues that may occur.

Who is Eyenetwork?
Eyenetwork is a video conference service provider aiding the legal profession since 2000 by:

Linking witnesses to court from remote locations

Creating virtual Courts which enable defendants to be trialled remotely

Connecting counsel interviews or conferences before trial

Help experts provide evidence or give expert advice at court

Arrange meetings between counsel, administrative and appeal hearings

Eyenetwork connects to courts all over the UK and the world on a daily basis and has an experienced client oriented team who aim to make the process simple and straightforward for our customers. With the help of our bridging service we connect to courts, facilities and laptop participants and ensure that their video conferencing experience is positive and successful.

Author: Lisa Honan, Managing Director
Eyenetwork

www.eyenetwork.com

Law firms should use more videos and less text (apparently)

On their websites, that is.

From the Solicitors Journal 13/10/14:

Websites of the UK's top 200 law firms are forgetting the 'user experience'

The country's top firms are ignoring the significant power of video to attract clients, a new report has suggested.

According to mmadigital, only 28 per cent of content is read on an average web page, compared to video which typically holds the attention of a viewer for two minutes.

Hmmm. Are potential clients really going to sit and watch a video on a law firm’s website and be swayed by that? That’s not a rhetorical question – I really don’t know. Maybe they are. But it seems a trifle strange to me.

Unsophisticated would-be clients will just use Google to find a law firm in their area (or a national centre churning out legal services factory style) and be principally concerned with obtaining the lowest price – ringing around if necessary. Medium sized businesses looking to instruct a firm may do a bit of their own research, but tend to be heavily swayed by past experience and the recommendations of others. Large, corporate clients aren’t going to choose to instruct a firm by looking at a firm’s website. Those kind of gigs are won through nepotism, networking and a lot of schmoozing (and sometimes a mixture of all three). So who is likely to choose a solicitor by watching videos on the web?

It’s a mystery.

Firms with video on their websites are 50 times more likely to appear on the first page of Google.

Oh cripes. Time to get embedding those videos folks!

The Windows Store is unspeakably bad

Oh – and it’s also riddled with rogue apps.

All and sundry in the tech world have reported that Microsoft is finally doing the honourable thing and having a clean out of their much maligned Windows Store.

Paul Thurrott picks up the story in his inimitable style as part of this week’s WinInfo Short Takes:

Microsoft finally cracks down on deceptive Windows Store apps

Microsoft[…] [has a] policy of "store stuffing," in which for four years now it has approved virtually any app a developer—professional or otherwise—has thrown at the Windows Phone Store or Windows Store, resulting in mountains of crap. […] Microsoft is promoting these stores as safe, safer than downloading desktop applications from unknown sources on the web. But when the supposedly curated Microsoft stores include bogus and even scam apps of all kinds, why would anyone trust these stores, or trust Microsoft when it says it's going to fix things now? Microsoft. This started happening FOUR YEARS AGO. Shame on you.

That’s a good point well made and all that, but it’s kind of assuming that there are at least some decent apps in the Windows Store to begin with. And I’m not sure there are.

I appreciate I might be biased here. I’ve realised for a while now that I’m an old school PC user who will be forever tied to the Windows desktop and I’m proud to eschew modern style (read: Fisher Price) apps that treat you like a five year old in favour of the more conventional, full-featured applications.

I’ve used a Surface 2 for eight months or so now. It’s ‘all-right-to-quite-good’ (yes, that is an adjective) for watching stuff while commuting, comes with a full version of Microsoft Office and, if you pay extra, a physical keyboard which doubles up as a protective cover – perfect for getting that occasional bit of work done when travelling home. (Actually, the cover bit is absolute crap; unless you’re happy to let that thing get battered to death, you’re going to need a dedicated cover or sleeve.)

Actually, while I’m in the mood for engaging in full and frank disclosure, I might as well admit that whenever I have my laptop with me on the train, I’ll always crack that out to get work done, rather than trying to cope with the rather cramped Surface 2 Typecover keyboard.

But I digress.

One thing that has always shocked me with the Surface (and Windows 8 generally) is just how spectacularly full of crap the Windows Store is. Like all Surface users, I inevitably tinkered with the Fresh Paint app on a couple of occasions in the early days, thought ‘well, that’s something I suppose, but I’m not much of an artist’ and then never opened it up again.

I’ve gone back and looked at the Windows Store quite frequently over the last few months, but I’ve never found any remotely tempting apps (free or otherwise) lurking in there. Ultimately, I guess I’d much rather use services through a web browser than downloading a one-trick-pony app.

Even worse, when you need to find something specific in the Windows Store, say a half decent media player which doesn’t screw you over with excessive ads, needless functionality or require a permanent internet connection, you’re out of luck.

(I had to go through this painful experience recently when Microsoft updated their ‘Metro’ Video app such that it will only now play content if you’re connected to the internet. That’s a bit of a pisser when you’re stuck on the train and rely on your Surface to watch videos. After trying a bizarre mixture of media player apps from the Windows Store, which ranged between ridiculous and unusable, I’m using the built-in ‘Photos’ app to play movies now.)

Here’s the clincher. When I got my Surface, it came with a £25 voucher from Microsoft which I could spend on paid apps of my choice in the Windows Store. After eight months of nosing around in there and finding nothing, I finally got sick of seeing that damn voucher kicking about, so I tossed it out with the recycling – unopened and unredeemed.

I think that tells you all you need to know.

Are Social Media Companies Left Open to Litigation By a Lack of Legal Safeguards?

Guest Post

Although social media is less than ten years old, its influence on not just the online world, but all forms of communication, has been immense. The influence of social media has spread beyond the online world to affect a great amount of culture.

Perhaps the scale and importance of social media is best represented in numbers. A total of 1.2 billion people have Facebook accounts, with hundreds of millions logging in to the website each day to check messages, view photos and interact with friends.

Other, ‘smaller’ social networks like Twitter have attracted more than 230 million active users. The userbase of Twitter sends out over 500 million collective tweets every single day – certainly not a small amount by anyone’s count.

The risk of defamation in social media
With the massive size of the social media world comes a considerable risk. Since the technology used in social media is almost completely instant, users can publish any message at any time, directed at almost any user.

In addition to this, permanent deletion is far from straightforward. Although users can easily delete individual tweets and status updates from their accounts, many of their messages remain on the servers of social media companies permanently.

One of the key legal issues of defamation in social media is determining whether the social media companies are responsible for the content their users produce. Does a Twitter user represent Twitter, or are they simply using the website to publish their own thoughts and opinions?

The legal question is complicated by the importance of freedom of expression, one of the most fundamental human rights. The second issue is the international nature of social media, where the user bases of social media services are international and law is not.

In countries governed both by local laws and EU laws, for example, there is already a tension between the two sets of laws. As of now, litigation is only possible when the message and dispute originate in the country in which libel litigation is pursued.

While their audiences are truly international, most social networks are based in the United States. Interestingly, there is little case law in the United States regarding the issue of social media libel – in fact, limited social media case law exists worldwide.

In January 2014, the first libel case related to postings on Twitter reached court. The case concerned a well-known celebrity – Courtney Love – who defended her tweet by claiming it was opinion, rather than defamation.

A 2013 defamation case regarding information published using Twitter – McAlpine v Bercow 2013 – resulted in a guilty verdict, although Twitter avoided being a party to the litigation itself.

Google, another provider of social media services, have been named as a defendant in a defamation case. The California-based company was part of the Tamiz v Google Inc 2013 case in England and Wales. Its defence was upheld – that it “did not know and had no reason to believe” it had contributed to the publication of the material.

There have been numerous smaller cases involving defamatory or libellous content posted on social media. Most have been averted by social media providers through the removal of offending content within a short amount of time.

The responsibility of individuals
In short, the short history of libel and defamation cases involving social networks and social media companies indicate that individuals are responsible for what they post online; not the companies that host their published opinions.

As social media companies act only as platforms for users to use to publish their thoughts and opinions, they appear to be adequately safeguarded from liability.

This article was provided on behalf of Vannin Capital, one of the UK’s leading specialist litigation funding providers.

Lousy Legislation and Miller’s Malapropism

Maria Miller MP’s speech on the rights and responsibilities of the internet age was published online earlier today.

Having a mooch through it, I spotted a bit of a howler.  Given that the context relates to child abuse online, the slip, if that’s the best term for it, was very unfortunate indeed.

In tackling child abuse online, the new National Crime Agency is bringing greater resources to bare [sic].

Really? Isn’t it, ‘to bear’?

And talking of howlers, I’m not sure I agree with her claim that English law, as it relates to the relatively recent phenomenon of social media, exists as a ‘strong and durable framework’. In fact, it’s anything but.

Quoting again from the speech:

The internet isn’t a ‘Second Life’, it isn’t something where different rules apply, where different behaviour is acceptable – it isn’t the wild west.

To put it simply the rules that apply offline are the same rules that apply online.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

The same already applies on social media

The legislation is already in place. And we have the guidelines by the Attorney General on contempt of court - and the Director of Public Prosecution’s on prosecutions involving social media communications – put together they present a strong and durable framework.

Outdated, ill-adapted and unclear would have been a more apt description of the law in my opinion.

Taking just one example from an inordinately long list, what about the bewildering duplication between section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communication Act 1988?

Does that sound like a strong and durable framework to you? Lousy legislating more like.

Let’s stop pretending that papering over the cracks with ‘guidance’ is an adequate substitute for proper public debate, consultation and legislative reform.

Because that’s what’s clearly needed.

Email sins revisited

Over time, it seems that email is abused more and more.  Yet for all of the criticisms concerning its use and the promise that some new wave of social media for the corporate world will kill email off for good, it’s more widely used than ever.

Email, like all forms of communication, has evolved.  It’s an on-going process.  It’s also true to say that email should be used in different ways depending on the circumstances.  When it comes to sending email, there is no one-size-fits-all.

Where email is used in a business or professional context, there are a few hard and fast rules which always apply. The Telegraph have picked up on a few of these (and, in my view, wrongly listed others). 

Here’s my take on their list of ‘seven deadly emails sins’.

1. Ping pong - constant emails back and forth
Yes, absolutely.  Taking time out to think properly about the situation and your response is always a good idea and amounts to time well spent.  Firing back an immediate, ill-thought-out reply can often result in tears (or at least a painful and protracted email thread).  Sometimes, picking up the phone and talking with the recipient beats email hands down, too.

2. Emailing out of hours 
Well, I guess it’s a question of extent.  Sometimes, emails need to be sent outside of regular work hours and it seems silly to wait until the next morning for the sake of adhering to policy.  But managing that ever shrinking divide between work and leisure is an on-going battle we all grapple with.  Knowing when to leave your work email unread is a key part of that.

3. Emailing while in company
As someone with virtually no multi-tasking skills at all, I find it incredibly irritating when I’m in the presence of someone I’m speaking to, who, as well as (sort of) participating in the conversation with me, is tapping out a response on their phone.  Maybe it’s jealousy?  Still, I’m a big believer that focussing on one thing at a time can often prove more productive in the long run.

4. Ignoring emails completely
On the whole, I’d agree.  Very occasionally, though, you might receive the an absolute howler which simply shouldn’t be dignified with a response.

5. Requesting read receipts
In some situations, my firm insists that read receipts are used on mail that we send.  Personally, I think they’re an annoyance and a complete waste of time.  I invariably configure my mail clients to ignore all requests for read receipts.  I’d recommend that you do likewise.  ;-)

6. Responding immediately to an email alert
I might have a view on this – if I knew what it meant.  Any ideas?

7. Automated replies and rules
Well, email rules, as I understand them, benefit the recipient by helping to automatically organise emails as they’re received.  (That’s true, at least, when used sensibly.)  Automated replies can be useful for both sender and recipient (assuming they’re configured correctly and the message provides genuinely helpful content – such as when the person will return to work, or who to contact in the meantime). 
Quite frankly, they’re definitely useful and have no place on this list.

I’d also like to throw in the utter futility of email footer messages ‘reminding’ the recipient not to print.  Compared to most of my colleagues, I’m very measured in the documents I choose to print. That said, I don’t appreciate being incessantly nagged at by green-coloured messages intended to guilt trip me into thinking I’m not entitled to use my printer. 

Businesses should stop kidding themselves that pieces of stupidity such as this make a meaningful difference to the environment – an environment, let’s not forget, that’s being systematically destroyed by humankind in a whole host of ways.  Why don’t we try and do something that will really make a difference and do it before it’s too late?

Just a thought.

Whilst, I’m on my hobby horse, I may as well bring something else up – commas.  I don’t know what the humble comma has done to apparently offend so many people, but I’ve noticed that shunning it when writing emails has suddenly become de rigueur.  It’s something law firms in particular are very guilty of.  I understand that the primary goal for written communication is to articulate the intended message as clearly as possible.  Equally, I fully appreciate that many businesses (law firms included) adhere to the plain English whatjamacallit.  Nevertheless, there is absolutely no need for a business to insult its customers, clients or anybody else it sends emails to by assuming that the inclusion of a few commas would be too much for the readers’ underdeveloped brains to cope with, thereby rendering the message unintelligible. 

Microsoft to re-brand SkyDrive after Sky victory

From Windows IT Pro (written by Paul Thurrott) 01/08/13:

Microsoft confirmed on Wednesday that it will not fight a July ruling by the England and Wales High Court in which it was found to have infringed on British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) trademarks for the term “Sky.” As a result, Microsoft has agreed to rebrand its SkyDrive cloud storage service with a new, as yet-unknown name.

Under the settlement, Microsoft can continue to use the SkyDrive name for a reasonable period of time while it implements a new brand.

BSkyB is a UK-based satellite broadcaster, Internet provider and telephone services firm. It does not make or sell any cloud-based storage services, nor is it clear how the firm could have obtained multiple trademarks for a term as general as “sky.”

Oh, Paul.  Where do we begin?

Perhaps it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the basic criteria a mark must meet to be capable of being registered as a trademark under English law.

Providing the mark meets the basic requirements under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (principally that the mark is distinctive - or capable of distinguishing - one proprietor’s goods or services from another’s and that the mark is capable of being represented graphically), there’s nothing stopping an application being made to register the mark in relation to several categories or ‘classes’ as they’re known.

Funnily enough, ‘cloud-based storage services’ isn’t a class per se. As Paul himself might say, “Go figure”.

Amongst others, the word “Sky” is registered in 2 classes for services (as distinct from goods) - class 38 and class 42.

Class 38 includes computer aided transmission of messages and images and, separately, telecommunications information. Class 42 includes the rental of computer software and home computing services generally.

In its July ruling, the UK court noted that a survey of consumer found that some people did indeed assume that SkyDrive was a BSkyB brand and that such people “should not be regarded as especially unobservant or lacking in ‘circumspectness’.”

Another key point is that “Sky” isn’t just a trademark of BSkyB – it’s their trading name.

On reflection, then, it’s not tough to see why Microsoft’s use of the word “Skydrive” infringed Sky’s trademark.

So why did Paul miss this?

It took just a couple of minutes to look up on the trademark register exactly what classes Sky have registered marks in and compare that to the list of classes available for services.

On top of that, it would have taken a matter of seconds to identify that “Sky” was the trading name of BSkyB.

On the Windows Weekly podcast, Paul often bemoans slipshod and lazy bloggers who fail to do their homework but then have the audacity to sully the internet with their inferior writing. He’s certainly got a point (particularly in the tech sphere) but the record has worn rather thin. Following this latest blooper, maybe it’s time Paul became a little less critical of others and a bit more self-reflective.

Just a thought.

Porn vs Real Life

There has been a lot of debate in recent months about how best to tackle the problems caused by the explosion of pornography in society brought about by the internet.

Dave, over at Number 10, spoke just the other week about plans to combat the “corroding influence of pornography on childhood” by requiring customers to specifically opt-in if they want to continue to have access to pornography via their ISP.

Oh, he also mentioned that it had finally dawned on the government to close that gaping loophole and bring depictions of rape within the provisions of extreme pornography. You know – 5 years too late and all that, but still.

Dave’s speech, of course, preceded the strategy paper that DCMS published yesterday. This so-called ‘strategy paper’ is in place of the White Paper that should have been released long before now outlining the anticipated Communications Bill. I suppose it’s nice that the DCMS finally got round to publishing something (don’t forget – the Green Paper was scrapped too) but it’s hard to ignore the fact that the concept of a new Communications Act is running embarrassingly out of steam.

Humph - and some say DCMS is a ‘mickey mouse’ department which hasn’t got the ‘teeth’ for matters as large and important as communications. I wonder why.

Anyway, returning to the damage that pornography has wrought on young people’s attitudes to sex, most people seem to be in agreement that better sex education and more open and transparent conversations about porn and sex are what are needed to provide kids with a reality check about what to really expect from sex.

Well, help is at hand. This extremely funny video (complete with statistics) uses food in a very creative way to shed light on just how divorced from reality the word of porn really is.

A word of warning: you’ll never look at a banana tip dipped in chocolate spread in quite the same way ever again.

Porn Sex vs Real Sex (as depicted with food).

Closing the rape porn loophole - better late than never

From the Guardian 22/07/13:

Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday.

In the most dramatic step by the government to crack down on the "corroding" influence of pornography on childhood, the prime minister will say that all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters.

The prime minister will also announce that possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, will be outlawed by the government. It is illegal to publish such pornography and illegal to possess it in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

I remember reading McGlynn and Rackley’s* article a few years ago which criticised the omission of rape from the ‘extreme pornography’ provisions under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

*See C. McGlynn, and E. Rackley, ‘Criminalising extreme pornography: a lost opportunity’, Crim. L.R. 2009, 4, 245-260.

As the authors highlight, the exclusion of rape represents not just a glaring omission on the part of the legislature, but an inexcusable deviation from the Government’s mission statement which set out rationale behind the provisions on extreme pornography in the first place.

[P]ornographic pro-rape websites, which are freely and easily accessible online, will [not] be covered by these measures. This is lamentable, not least because the “extensive availability of sites featuring violent rape” was within the initial purview of the Government. Although some “violent” rapes may be covered (what is “non-violent” rape?), if they involve weapons or result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals, this excludes many pornographic rape images.

While many of the “rapes” on pornographic rape websites may not be “real”, but staged, they nonetheless are often presented as real and certainly presented to valorise forced sex. Indeed, one deeply ironic aspect of the exclusion of pornographic rape websites from the scope of the CJIA is that the apparent evidence of a causal link between exposure to violent pornography and a propensity to commit acts of sexual violence (deployed by the Government) is based on research which invariably deploys images of rape as the basis for investigation.

Rape sites, such as those described above, should have been brought within the scope of these measures, whether or not the rape involves additional physical violence**, and their exclusion reveals the extent to which the Government has strayed from its initial ambition and lost sight of the harms to be addressed by these measures.

** My emphasis.

It’s a positive sign that the government has finally acknowledged the need to close this gaping lacuna; it’s just a pity it’s taken them 4 – 5 years to do so.

Digg Reader: spoke too soon

After posting my review (of sorts) last week, my experience with Digg Reader took a turn for the worse.

At some point before the weekend, it stopped showing the number of unread items next to each subscription and then failed to show new content reliably enough to be usable.

Put simply, it stopped doing what I needed it to do.

I understand it’s a work in progress and there are developments coming, but an RSS reader needs to get the basics right from day one.

And for now, Digg Reader fails miserably on that front.

For the time being, I’ve switched to ‘The Old Reader’ which is much uglier than Digg Reader and its performance isn’t quite so snappy. Still, it offers all the functionality I need and that’s the main thing.

I’ll keep an eye on Digg Reader’s progress in the coming weeks, but they need to get the basics fixed quickly for this thing to stand any chance of surviving now it’s out in the wild.

Thoughts on Digg Reader

I finally got my grubby mitts on the eagerly awaited Digg Reader today. And just in time, too, as Google are turning Google Reader’s lights out on Sunday night. Sob, sob.

First things first, the import process (from Google Reader) works well; it retained the folder structure and the arrangement of RSS feeds within folders. My preference is to have folders stacked in an order which suits me and for the individual subscriptions within those folders to be sorted alphabetically. The fact all this was carried over intact from Google Reader was an unexpected surprise. Good show.

Perhaps most importantly, Digg have kept to their brief. They have made something very lightweight and utilitarian, that does a few things very well (resisting the temptation to turn it into a kitchen-sink type of web app). Less is definitely more when it comes to RSS aggregators.

Overall performance is surprisingly good. It seems slightly more responsive than Google Reader and, quite frankly, it’s nice to have a new interface to live with for a while. Let’s face it: Google Reader has been neglected for far too long.

Ok, I grant you, Digg Reader is still a bit buggy, but that’s only to be expected at this stage. The few bugs I’ve encountered, though, have been relatively minor. For instance, I’ve noticed some of my previously deleted subscriptions have been strangely resurrected in the transfer and I’ve found myself needing to click twice (sometime three times) on a subscription to view the content.

In any case, Digg have always stressed this is by no means the finished product. It was vital they got version 1.0 out of the door before Google turned the lights out on Reader on 1^st July. It’s important to keep a sense of perspective too; for Digg to have put together what they have in such a short time is a testament to their engineering prowess. Well done, I say.

So, overall, I’m impressed with Digg Reader after a full day of use and I’m looking forward to the updates to come. If you’re a current Google Reader user, you should give it a go, too.

As an aside, going through my RSS subscriptions made me realise to what extent the once vibrant blawgosphere has dwindled. It really is a sad state of affairs from the heyday of 2008 to 2010.

Nevertheless, for those of us who remain, the show must go on

And Digg Reader is going to make it that bit easier.

Digg Reader to launch next week. A heaven-sent gift to bloggers?

From the Guardian 18/06/13:

The Google Reader RSS aggregator service shuts down on 1 July, leaving many of its users scrambling to choose and migrate to a suitable replacement. One of the candidates, Digg Reader, is now confirmed to launch next week.

Make that the only potentially viable replacement, subject to the world, you know, actually seeing it.

It's the work of a five-person team within Digg, which is enjoying its second lease of life as part of startup incubator Betaworks, which acquired the social news website in July 2012.

Digg announced plans to build a Google Reader replacement in March 2013, promising to rebuild that service's best features "but also advance them to fit the Internet of 2013". It proceeded to survey more than 18,000 people on their wishlists for the new product.

Three months later, version one of the Digg Reader has a launch date – 26 June – and the promise that it will be fast, simple and focused on the keenest users of Google Reader as they look for a new home.

Like everyone who relies heavily on Google Reader, I was dismayed when Google announced earlier this year it would be retiring its RSS aggregator.

As a blogger, I use Google Reader extensively to keep track of the posts of other bloggers out there and it’s been invaluable in allowing me to monitor developments in the blawgoshere. Rather than having to check a long list of blogs for new posts, any blog featuring a new post is flagged up automatically in my Google Reader list. It’s been an absolute Godsend.

But over the past couple of years, I’ve found myself using it increasingly for work purposes, too, keeping up with legal content, industry developments, Ofcom’s latest consultations and so on.

I’ve tried other RSS aggregators, but like so many others, Google’s no-nonsense utilitarian style suited me perfectly. The rest (up until now at least) don’t even come close.

And I’ve only got about 10 days left to enjoy Google Reader before the lights go out permanently.

So I’m praying Digg’s new offering is up to scratch from the get-go. I have relatively simple needs from an RSS reader but I really hope Digg Reader is able to fill the void that’s going to be left by Google exiting the market.

I’m itching to give it a go next week when it goes live. 

Making the Law Accessible

Guest PostBefore the internet, legal service and the law itself was complicated, confusing and inaccessible. It still can be complicated and confusing, but through various schemes and technology like the internet, people no longer have to have access to the physical volumes of the law itself to gain knowledge or understanding of the law.

The Internet and Online Lawyers
The dawn of the internet has revolutionised the way that people are able to access the law. Now, instead of having to seek out the places that have physical copies of the law as well as having to organise how to get there, most people are just a click or two away from things like the Human Rights Act. There are also sites that help people to create their own legal documents too, making the process simpler and easier to understand.

Not only can they now find the law itself within easy reach, but access to lawyers and solicitors has vastly improved too. This means that the cost of legal services is also reduced. The improved access means that the competition in the market is increased, as people are no longer restricted to their local area. Technology such as video messaging means that it is no longer necessary for people and their legal aid to meet face to face. Online Conveyancing from In Deed, for example, offer an exclusive price promise that means that if the transaction doesn’t complete, you don’t have to pay. Deals like this exist because of good market competition.

Improving Awareness
There are also a variety of schemes that aim to help people develop their awareness and understanding of the law. This opens up the law to those who haven’t necessarily had access to it before, such as people with disabilities, young people and those who are disadvantaged. Charities such as Law for Life, Lawyers in Schools and LawWorks all aim to equip the general public with the confidence to deal with the law and law related issues, as well as offering free legal help. Charities that deal with young people and children are particularly good as they can help to change prejudices and help empower those who think that they have no rights.

Accessible Law
In an ideal world, the law would be rewritten to make it more understandable and clearer for those who don’t have legal training. However, as it took more than ten years to have the tax code rewritten, it may take far more time and resources than anyone has. For now, making the law accessible to the public through internet lawyers and charities is the best way forward.

Work email culture–there’s always tomorrow

From Law Donut 17/05/13:

Accessing work-related emails is no longer just confined to the working day. According to a new report, small business employees are checking their work emails at all hours of day and night – even at social occasions that include weddings, school events and family get-togethers.

Excuse me?  What’s new about this?  Hasn’t this been a widespread problem for several years now?

The survey, conducted by Opinion Matters on behalf of GFI Software, polled 500 employees in small business workplaces across the UK. It found that technology has blurred the boundaries between home and work. Three quarters of respondents said they check their work email at the weekend, 44% check work email after 11pm and 54% keep on top of work email on holiday.

I’ve long regarded email at work as being both a symptom and a cause of the growing OCD epidemic. No, seriously. 

There was a time that I would regularly check my work emails outside of the working day. Over the last couple of years, though, I’ve found a little work-life demarcation has been in order and have made a conscious effort to only check work emails during working hours. It can be tough at first to break old (unhealthy) habits but it’s well worth sticking with.  I also removed my work mail accounts from my smartphone and, funnily enough, my cold sweats and panic attacks immediately subsided.  ;-)  Sometimes life’s too short to tolerate these things.  Remember: that vitally important email will still be safely in your inbox on Monday morning. 
Who said there’s no such thing as 9 – 5 legal practice any more? 

The report also found that email is used at the office more than any other form of communication:

• 48.8% of respondents use email for work more than any other communications format
• 25% still prefer face-to-face meetings
• 23.6% prefer to pick up the phone

Don’t get me started: there’s nothing more disruptive than a telephone call.

Email gets a quick response from the majority of respondents – with 75% saying they typically reply to emails within one hour during work hours and almost a third replying within 15 minutes.

And for the record, anybody who sends an email and then follows it up with a phone call within a matter of minutes is blatantly asking for a smack in the mouth!

Domain Names – When an apostrophe makes ALL the difference

Remember these brarmers?  Well, I discovered one ‘in the wild’ just the other day.

Trawling through some results on Google, I spied a URL which didn’t seem to quite fit the search term: (www dot) oneillpatient (dot co dot uk).

One-ill-patient. Thinking it was in poor taste and that I’d discovered a new low in the level to which medical malpractice firms would stoop, I quickly discovered it was a case of crossed wires.

It turned out a missing apostrophe was to blame and it was these guys (a wholly reputable law firm I might add). 

Funnily enough, they don’t specialise in medical negligence claims … (I wonder if they’re missing a trick there!!).

If only URLs could accommodate apostrophes, the world would be a much less confusing place.