The Web's Bushiest Site

The final section of The Friendly Guide to Regulating the Internet has been added:

It’s very difficult to say whether interfering with the sovereignty of other nations is good or bad, as it depends a lot on the situation at hand and your own view of the situation. One thing is certain however, some regulations of this global network of ours involve international diplomacy, which can make the creation or implementation of laws way, way, way more difficult.

Read the introduction to online national sovereignty at FriendlyToS.

Another addition to The Friendly Guide to Regulating the Internet

This is intellectual property in a nutshell: IP hurts, but we need it. It encourages the creation of speech by limiting the creation of speech. IP is a confusing concept that is sometimes great, sometimes dangerous, sometimes unnecessary, and thanks to the Internet, a part of your everyday life.

The Friendly Guide to Regulating the Internet: Copyright as Incentive for Content Creation

Just put up part 4 of The Friendly Guide to Regulating the Internet.

If you’ve ever uploaded a home video to YouTube then you know the difference between a distributor of content and a creator of content. YouTube did not create the video you uploaded, you did. What YouTube did was distribute the content you created – it provided the tools and infrastructure that allow others to watch your video. And while YouTube didn’t make your video, if your video ended up getting millions of hits, you know your Internet fame would not exist without YouTube’s distribution.

Read the full post at FriendlyToS.

Added a concept to The Friendly Guide to Internet Regulation: prior restraint

Every once in a while somebody proposes a law along the lines of “anybody who wants to talk about puppies will have to get an OK first,” or “nobody will be allowed to talk about nuclear physics” (puppies and nuclear physics are interchangeable with any subject you can think of). The law maker might be well intentioned, saying that discussion of nuclear physics can lead to building a nuclear bomb. The problem is a discussion of nuclear physics can also lead to solving humanity’s energy problems.

You can read the whole post at FriendlyToS.

Added a couple of posts over at FriendlyToS.

Headlines of the Week

A number of activists have voiced their concern over the terms of Google Plus that require users to supply their real names. In particular, the policy has been criticized as inconsistent and favoring the famous (since celebrities have been able to use their stage names), disrespecting of those who choose an identity of their own, and inconsiderate of those who need to hide their identity for their own safety. In the face of these criticisms, Google has announced that in the future, Google Plus users will be able to use pseudonyms on their profiles.

Check out the full post at FriendlyToS.

Government and Your Data

The law allows government agencies to access data about you. Your consent to website terms allows government agencies to access data about you. This is not a comment on the state of citizen rights, nor is it an Orwellian critique of government surveillance. This is simply a reminder that if you put information online, or make use of Internet services, the possibility exists that the government can access that information for some compelling reason.

Head to FriendlyToS for the whole post.

Seth Woodworth and I have started a site to help consumers understand the legalese of websites: FriendlyToS. Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll be coding scrappers and differs to help users identify changes in terms of services when they happen and figure out what those dense blocks of text mean. Along with that, we will also be writing blog posts covering online legalese issues and news. And just like with my Humphrey blog posts, I’m going to put up a summary here when I make a FriendlyToS post. With that said, here is my first FriendlyToS post:

Real harbors do a lot of good for society. They allow commerce and immigration. But its no secret that surely old salts spend a lot of time in harbors. Imagine for a second that you own a harbor. In your harbor, Bluto has been trash-talking Popeye, and now Popeye wants to sue you because of what Bluto said. Does that sound fair to you? And would you want to continue to own your harbor if every bad thing a sailor said on your docks became a lawsuit for you?

Check out the full post at FriendlyToS.