September, 2006


29
Sep 06

NetTrust: security and online identity verification

I’m interested in the problem of online identity, in part because of its relationship to trademark. Trademark theoretically verifies identity and source, but as anyone who has seen a phishing email knows, trademark is becoming more and more meaningless in that respect. (Many of the arguments I’ve seen for ‘we need stronger trademark’ really are arguments for ‘we need stronger fraud prosecution’.)

The NetTrust project looks like an interesting attempt to resolve the issue by using your browsing history, your friends’ browsing history, and third party sources (presumably like stopbadware.org) to help verify a website’s identity in the client- i.e., where it can’t be manipulated by the website you’re looking at. Very interesting idea- I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on it, and those who are concerned with ‘software identity’ (Java and Firefox, I mean you) should probably poke at it and think about it too.

I’m not sure whether or not this has formal legal ramifications, but it does seem like it is worth thinking about the utility of trademark in an online context, where other characteristics can be used to verify identity and quality in ways that may or may not be available offline.


28
Sep 06

Mr. Long Tail and Mr. Free Culture on the ‘end of the blockbuster’ at the New York Public Library

I got a chance to go to see Chris Anderson (author of the Long Tail Wired article, and since then of a Long Tail blog and now a book) speak tonight at the New York Public Library. After a brief talk, he sat down with Lawrence Lessig and chatted, eventually answering some questions. My sketchy bullet-point-y notes, from my 770:

  • older crowd than I expected- very mixed. (Not everyone stayed the whole time, which was surprising; I would have thought that anyone who paid to get in in the first place would have found it interesting enough to stay.)

Anderson:

  • the hits-driven culture of the 20th century was a temporary anomaly; culture was previously fragmented by distance and manifested itself as folk art.
  • Then tech rises- particularly radio- physics and economics lead to the rise of one-to-many (i.e., one broadcaster using expensive gear and limited bandwidth to broadcast culture to many people). Radio first, then TV.
  • The big hit is on the decline. Nsync c. 2000 was last big hit album- last to break the one-day sales record. Not going to happen again, likely.
  • now distribution will be by taste, not geography
  • end of the blockbuster impacts not just music- Big 4 TV networks have cratered in viewership, even though total # of viewers across all networks same or even growing. music radio dying; newspapers too.
  • The ‘long tail’ is… well, I already knew, so I didn’t take notes on this. Read the wired article I linked above or the Wikipedia article. :)
  • Distribution costs led to a ‘savagely truncated’ end of the tail- we could only afford so much broadcasting/shelf space/whatever, so we didn’t even try to sell the stuff at the end of the tail. Along the way, we convinced ourselves that no one cared about the stuff at the end of the tail.
  • Some numbers on the truncation: about 1% of new albums make it into walmart (crazy.) 21% of netflix sales come from dvds not available at blockbuster; 40% of rhapsody sales come from albums not available at walmart; and this segment (the stuff not available off the shelf at physical retailers) is growing more quickly than other segments. Defines the long tail explicitly as ‘everything not available at the largest physical retailers.’
  • Five big takeaways:
    • we confused limited distribution with shared tastes- i.e., we thought that since no one could affordably get variety, no one wanted variety
    • everyone is outside the mainstream in some way- you might be totally mainstream in everything except your music, or your reading habits, or something.
    • one size no longer fits all
    • the best stuff isn’t necessarily at the top
    • Mass market is now a mass of niches

In the chat:

  • Chris Anderson (CA): hits will still hapen; but they have to compete broadly now. Hits can also bypass the hitmaking machine, and become a bottom up hit. (See: OK Go.)
  • word of mouth more powerful than it was- can create new hits (obviously), but less obviously also kills manuactured hits quickly- new data shows that films fall off much more quickly after their first weekend than they used to.
  • more content now- mentions lulu- not sure if there is a causal relationship between long tail and more content; but he thinks lots of publishing is non-economic, so long tail means even economic failures have readers and motivation. (Like this blog.)
  • Lessig (LL): question: read-only v. read-write (RW)- how does longtail relate?
  • CA: RW: wikipedia- long tail gives you an audience, therefore motivation. LL: qualitatively different? non-traditional economy? CA: motivation by non-cash- are attention/ reputation a parallel economy? Maybe. LL calls it second economy (see his blog post today). CA: hitdriven culture was purely economic; tool democratization and spread critical (‘you have all the tools of the record industry on your laptop’). Allows identification of new talent more efficiently.
  • LL: how do you have ‘hybrid economy’ company like Red Hat? Can you make youtube profitable w/out pissing off users by putting ads in there? CA: the audience is now a demanding mob, with ability to go elsewhere, so they have all the leverage. Old media had less competition, so they had leverage over the (presumably bored) audience.
  • LL: how does IP play into this? CA: rights clearance can kill small productions, even in Read only-mode. Obviously in read-write this is a mess. CA: rights are elephant in room of tail. Notes that old stuff is in tail too- if a long tail analysis demonstrates that old stuff has more value than we thought, maybe we should extend copyright? Counters LL, possibly? LL: answer I (Luis) did not quite grok. CA: We need a rights clearinghouse; and registration/expiration of old stuff. (Ideas CA says up front were stolen gratuitously from LL.)

Questions:

  • CA: New tastemakers are bottomup. Old tastemakers will have to compete with that. (Ed.: I prefer ‘editor’ or ‘tastefinder’ to tastemaker, but CA is an editor in a media empire (Wired) so he would use tastemaker :)
  • Q about network neutrality. CA: doesn’t think net neutrality is practically a problem. LL: networks want to be old-schol gatekeepers, just like the bottlenecks in radio/TV that were supposed to go away.
  • Q: political long tail? CA: There is political scarcity (only so many seats in Congress; winner-take all situation), which leads to consolidation- compare to lack of scarcity in new ‘net world. Tangentially, notes that capitalism, democracy and evolution are the most powerful forces on earth, and yet totally counterintuitive and no one understands them. CA and LL agree that clearly the long tail makes control of speech/opinion harder than it was, even if we’re still in a two party duopoly.
  • Q: Micropayments? CA: Micropayments are already sort of here via clicks/ads (i.e., payment for attention); tinks people/woyld hate to be nickel-dimed for actual cash. LL points out crowding out (doesn’t say it by name), notes that micropayments would make that worse. Gives example of paying wikipedia volunteers per edit- would totally change nature of their relationship to the project.
  • Q: Balkanization- that’s supposed to be a bad thing. CA: moving towards a tribal culture- deep connections w/ small groups replace shallow connections (i love lucy) w/ everyone. CA notes that he thinks that over time we’ll mature and our political blog reading will moderate- more bell curve, less extreme edges. Early balkanization is abberation.

A lot for my poor brain to ponder in one night, even if I’ve heard it all before. I’m putting my money on Lessig’s next book being titled ‘The Second Economy’; I’m guessing that he’s going to extend Benkler’s Peer Production thesis into something more human readable, and explicitly more pragmatic. We’ll see- should be interesting, no matter how you slice it.

Oh, and it was great to meet Michael Dolan. Yay for more real world meeting.


27
Sep 06

Taking assumptions and flipping them completely

[Crossposted from First Movers. Comments over there.]

This note from the latest Harvard Law Review is exactly the kind of internet law writing I’d like to be able to do- taking something we take almost for granted (cybercrime is bad!) and turning it completely on its head (cybercrime isn’t bad, it is a healthy irritant that improves our security against unanticipated catastrophic security events.) Really interesting article and well worth the read if you’re interested in internet law or looking to see your assumptions challenged.

Unintentionally, this article demonstrates why I’m interested in internet law as an intellectual problem. Because the economics and social dynamics of our online interactions are often so different from our offline experience, our intuitions about what should work there are often very wrong. As a result, understanding those intuitions and attacking and inverting them is still very possible, very productive, and very fun- not settled like it appears to be in other places in the law.

[Image: A Chinese martial artist using his opponent's energy against him, from the Wikipedia article on Martial Arts.]


27
Sep 06

So depressing, so true

If he would be a great lawyer, he must first consent to become a great drudge.–Daniel Webster.

Oy. –me


27
Sep 06

legal research class is going to be like stubbing my toe, over and over and over again

Oh boy. Today was my first legal research class. Pretty much what it sounds like- teach you how to do research, specifically in law. While I’m sure I’ll learn completely invaluable skills in the class, I may well spend a lot of time screaming about this class, because it will involve interaction with lots of things that offend my sense of taste, and my sense of right and wrong.

  • Wexis, the duopoly: Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis, sometimes known as Wexis, are a defacto duopoly. They charge appropriately criminal rates to use them, and use appropriately ensnaring tactics: the best journals (and I’ve heard some courts!) are paid not to publish on the web, making Google and Google Scholar less useful; like any other drug, the first hit is free (students don’t have to pay); they sue startup competitors; they lobby for increased copyright protection; etc.
  • Wexis, the software: both Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis operate gigantic web presences (subscriber-only) that, well, suck. The usability of both are about what you’d have expected of a library search interface, c. 1985. The design is crowded, complex, and confusing. Neither, as far as I can tell, have discovered that they have massive measures of relevance- huge networks of links, aka citations- that they can use to determine what is most likely to be useful to me when I’m searching.
  • Law journals: unlike journals in every serious science, law journals are not peer reviewed. Some fairly serious scholars have argued for more than 70 years that they aren’t useful for anything except getting tenure. Thankfully, open access publication, law blogs, and potentially the rise of peer-reviewed law journals is making this problem a little less painful.
  • Citation: citation of cases and journals in legal papers is completely, incredibly baroque. Unlike some of the other problems I’m going to hate about this class, there was once upon a time a sane reason for these standards- if you needed to find something in an old-fashioned legal library, specificity and precision in citation was incredibly important. With all the technological tools we have now, this should no longer be a problem. But yet it still is.

Thankfully, all of these are known problems- aside from the duopoly problem, it seems likely that many of them will grow less painful with time. (And I hold out hope for google solving the duopoly problem, since things like court decisions and journals are clearly within their ‘index all knowledge’ remit.) But anyway… I needed to rant :)
(I hope to find time to read this really good looking paper on the Wexis duopoly soon, too…)


25
Sep 06

boston-area voting talk

If any of my boston-area readers are interested in really secure electronic voting, my friend Ben Adida, whose recent PhD thesis was on cryptographic voting, is giving an ‘intro to cryptographic voting’ talk tomorrow at Hahvahd. Free lunch even, apparently, though if it is like most Harvard lunches you’ll want to get there a bit early :) More details on Ben’s blog here. I haven’t heard Ben speak publicly on crypto-voting, but I have on other topics, and it has always been stimulating and educational, so I recommend it strongly if you’re interested in the topic.


24
Sep 06

open office still pulling the wrong page from the firefox playbook

[Phew. Finished torts reading for the night, so one last quick thought.]

Almost two years ago to the day, I wrote:

In my humble opinion, OOo should to take a page from the mozilla folks- take a release cycle (or more) and focus exclusively on improving performance and usability. No new features. Even remove features if necessary. This is what firefox has done over mozilla, and that’s done wonders for firefox, both in user uptake and hacker uptake. They’ve gone from dozens of paid hackers to something like ten, and despite that, because of the new focus, still increased market share and hacker interest. If open office focused on those problems for a year, licked the startup time problem, and made (say) preferences less grotesque, I think they’d see a radical improvement in uptake and involvement. Frankly, people are excited about switching from IE to firefox, as far as I can see- it offers something fairly light, quick, and new features virtually every user will use and like. No one except people who loathe Microsoft are excited to switch to open office, and they won’t be until the speed and usability issues with open office are addressed. Sadly, I see no evidence that OOo is focused on these problems- if OOo wants to be competitive and relevant, if it wants to excite people, those must be job #1 for the OOo team.

Basically every word in there is still true. Startup time is still terrible; the preferences panel is still brutal; focus is still on feature parity. They are still not focusing on what made firefox such a quantum leap over mozilla, as I discussed two years ago.

This is not to say that OOo has ignored ffox. The have apparently looked at the firefox example and decided that what they need is… plugins. Now, plugins are pretty good for users- they allow people to customize and add features without increasing substantial complexity or QA burden for core developers, or difficulty in configuration for non-power users. They are also a useful feature for a piece of software from a competitive viewpoint, in that they create a powerful network effect. (The only times I ever think twice about using firefox these days is when someone points me at a greasemonkey plugin.) So plugins aren’t bad, by any stretch of the imagination.

But plugins do not solve core problems in your product- not when those problems are lack of stability, lack of performance, lack of ease of use, lack of Killer Feature that your competition lacks. That OOo is spending time adding a plugin infrastructure- which addresses none of those problems (except hypothetically the killer feature problem, someday, if you get lucky)- shows that again they still aren’t getting it. They still have not learned the right lessons from firefox.
So c’mon, guys… where is my gnomeoffice powerpoint replacement? :)


24
Sep 06

Some weekends are good weekends.

New York is an expensive, crowded, piss-smelling bitch goddess, but when she is good, she is good.

  • Friday: class canceled during the day; relaxed night at home. Yay.
  • Saturday afternoon: see very old friends for the first time in ages. When they came in to town, their first stop was the awesome bookstore on my street, because hey, you don’t get that in Miami. Yay.
  • Saturday night: live jazz. Food was sort of lame, and service was horrendous, but the music was good and the mood was nice.
  • Sunday morning: delicious brunch, meet new people.
  • Sunday afternoon: the Go Game, by way of the Come Out and Play Festival. Like a scavenger hunt, on completely insane technological steroids. I’ll never be able to do a regular scavenger hunt again.

If only there weren’t this pesky reading still to do. Contracts and Civ Pro done, but Torts still hanging over my head.


23
Sep 06

On Killing Spammers, and Other Methods of Setting Legal and Moral Precedent

I was reading one of my course books last week (probably Civil Procedure) and one of the minor notes mentioned a British case (early in the development of the jury system- 1200s? 1300s?) where a judge ordered the death penalty for a defendant despite a hung jury. The king responded by… literally hanging the judge. I’m sure that was the first and last time the King had to tell a judge to pay attention to the jury. Relatively speaking, some early product liability judgments were also huge- it got the attention of companies and helped focus them on the creation of safer products. Clearly, penalties we would now consider wildly disproportionate have at various points in the past helped establish precedent (both moral and legal) that certain things Just Aren’t Done.

So here is the thought that crossed my mind as I read that hanging case- do we need to do the same in spam? Life (or death) sentences for mass spammers until it is communicated that it is just not acceptable to spam? I realize, of course, that this would never fly constitutionally, and practically it is hard to define ‘mass’ spammer. But it really seems like it is a shame we probably couldn’t get away with killing a few spammers- because surely you wouldn’t need to do more than 1 or 2 before the point got across very clearly. To put it another way: I don’t think all spammers should die; I just think that enough spammers should die so that the rest stop doing it. :) We’re clearly in a fairly interesting historical situation, where some of the things we all hate have no clear moral or legal antecedents, and the penalties we’ve set up so far are clearly not discouraging enough.

So anyway… I’m really curious to do more reading and research about how, in times of historical change, precedent is set- because it seems like we need to do some precedent setting. Something else for the ‘papers to write’ file, I guess :)


23
Sep 06

some ponderings on emperor linux (and more pre-packaged linux in general)

About a month ago I got a Raven tablet (basically a Lenovo X41) from Emperor Linux. I got it with Emperor’s modified Ubuntu. The experience was, frankly, very mixed. Lots of things didn’t work out of the box like I expected, but they eventually did a pretty good job helping me fix most of them. In the end I mostly got what I wanted- a working tablet, and a price signal sent to Lenovo and others that I want Linux supported on their laptops. (I did end up wasting a lot of time, which is the thing I very much wanted to avoid, but that is water under the bridge.)

I already addressed the state of tablet software as a result. I hope we can get on the ball there- I really think this is important.

Bigger picture, I’m boggled that Fedora, OpenSuse, and Ubuntu, all of whom have open or semi-open build systems now, are not actively seeking out Emperor and companies like Emperor, and helping them ship distros that are as close to upstream- and hence most supportable- for everyone. Obviously it is in RH, Canonical, and Novell’s interests to actively pursue Big Enterprise Fish like HP and Dell. But I’m really surprised that the communities around these distros haven’t sought out the smaller, and potentially growing, companies that are offering computers with Linux pre-installed. It seems like this is a win-win for everyone- the small companies could get help building more supportable and correct packages, and could require less expertise on their side of the fence, while the communities would get patches and concrete feedback from the companies, and would be able to point community members at a place where they could buy machines from those who directly work with their favorite distro. I mean, if I’m a Fedora user, I want to buy a machine with Fedora on it- and ideally a machine with a ‘well deployed’ Fedora- i.e., everything is packaged in accordance with Fedora standards, supportable via yum, etc. Surely it would behoove Fedora to be able to point me at such a box, as well as the traditional ‘buy any old box, pay your MS tax, and then install this ISO.’

Nothing particularly deep here- just seems like something I’m surprised no one is doing yet. Certainly  it would have improved my Emperor experience a bit if some of their stuff had been packaged and managed instead of put in /opt/, and if their patches go upstream, it is a win for everyone.


This work by Luis Villa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States.