Comment from emmett e childress , jr.
Time: July 2, 2007, 4:59 pm

When I read this post I felt like the caveman in the Geico commercial…what!!! Then I wanted to know if the firm was using any “web 2.0″ features to interact with clients and other members of the firm.

Now I want to know what the name of the group will be when the buzzword changes.

Main Entry: net·work·ing
Function: noun
1 : the exchange of information or services among individuals, groups, or institutions; specifically : the cultivation of productive relationships for employment or business

What is the point in describing networking as social act?

Comment from Toby
Time: July 7, 2007, 9:59 am

Scott – Large fees aside, it’s a savvy move on the firm’s part. Much as we might like the lawyers to play somewhere else, as 2.0 morphs into 3.0 .. 4.0 .. etc. companies are going to increasingly want that fuzzy security blanket to mitigate risk.

The real challenge is how to do that while maintaining the authenticity of the conversation. As Emmett points out MMM may understand the “law” but it sure doesn’t appear as tho they “get” Web 2.0. Until that happens they could be doing clients more harm than good. I would first encourage the new group to step into the game by launching a social media strategy that includes a ‘conversational blog.’

Comment from Paul Arne
Time: July 13, 2007, 4:27 pm

Scott,

Thanks for starting up this blog.  Since you mentioned my firm, and since I
started the Web 2.0 group in my firm, I though you might be interested in why
we created it.  I started this group
(along with my partner, Sandra Gardiner) after I pondered a few issues.

First, since I represent Web 2.0 companies, I figured that
really understanding the legal issues in this space was important.  So instead of telling clients that some
issues need research, I and others have taken it upon ourselves to learn a lot
about the law in this area before we get the call.

Second, to be effective we’ve got to understand the context
in which the law is being applied.  So,
we’ve spent considerable time studying Web 2.0 business models to understand
how they make money (or might), what functionality they offer, why their
functionality is compelling or not, and when the functionality may be useful in
different contexts.  This has
already reaped benefits with some clients who aren’t even in the Web 2.0 space –
I’ve been able to recommend Web 2.0 strategies to non-Web 2.0 companies to help
them with particular business issues.

Third, knowing a lot about the business models and the law
in this area helps keep down legal fees. 
Sure, we’re a fairly large firm and our rates are comparable to other
large firms.  That’s how we attract
and keep legal talent.  However, legal
fees are calculated as rate x time. 
Focusing on rate is only half the equation.  If I can synthesize issues in a 30
minute call that others will need to have an associate spend 12 hours in the
library researching, then I’ve saved the client money.  This is how my firm represents startups.  We try to get good at doing what
startups need so in many situations it won’t cost as much.  We represent plenty of startups, and
understandably, they are all cost conscious.

I do take issue with Emmett’s and Toby’s suggestion that we
don’t "get it" just because we haven’t done something specific like
social networking with clients.  It’s
a much more effective use of my time to study and understand MySpace, Facebook,
Digg, Craigslist, YouTube, Flickr, Second Life, del.icio.us, uses for blogs, LinkedIn,
BuzzMetrics, etc. and read cases decided under the CDA and DMCA to understand
the parameters of their protections than it is to operate a social networking
site or even figure out how to do that in light of our ethical obligations of
confidentiality, among others. 

Some folks in my firm are exploring Web 2.0 strategies for
our firm.  I have 2 blogs of my own.  But I don’t view that as the measure of
whether we "get it."  My
hope is that most people who talk with me about these business models don’t
think of me as a n00b.

I’m looking forward to reading more of the info on this
blog.

Paul Arne

Comment from emmett e childress , jr.
Time: July 14, 2007, 10:19 pm

In 1993 I helped bring pharmaceutical drugs to market. I was a sophomore in college working on a project that enabled managers to communicate with scientists. The underlying technologies that are considered “Web 2.0″ have been around for years.

I am a tough purchaser of services. I am a potential client that wants to know if the firm was using any “web 2.0″ features to interact with clients and other members of the firm. I would agree that you should not operate a social networking site. I would argue that businesses could benefit from your experience if you were well versed in how to operate sites that took the law into consideration.

Digg was forced into publishing information that was illegal. Craig’s list was used to violate the fair housing act. These sites are responsible for operating as publishers who must adhere to the laws of the land. Youtube is being sued by Viacom because the users of the service engage in copyright infringement. How to operate a site as an online publisher and not have your users get you involved in legal battles is the most important part of the business model.

I don’t consider you a n00b. Anyone who understands how to implement an economically viable business model in today’s climate is definitely someone to be respected. The issue before us is that the illegal use of these sights must be addressed by means that don’t jeopardize the site ’s ability to exist.

Comment from emmett e childress , jr.
Time: July 15, 2007, 2:58 am

Dell Demands Takedown Of Our “22 Confessions Of A Former Dell Sales Manager”

What happens when a former employee uses web 2.0 to perform a “knowledge transfer.”

Comment from Paul Arne
Time: July 17, 2007, 7:47 pm

I completely agree that business models in Web 2.0 must comply with the law or they are at serious risk. Digg is a great example, because Digg’s business model relinquishes control of content to its users. If the users post something illegal (like the DVD HD decryption information) and the business model doesn’t keep it from being posted or removed, then the business model is at risk. Fortunately, the vast majority of posts are not like that on Digg so, unlike Napster, maybe there’s hope. Also, maybe users will start to self-police once they understand that they can really hurt the site that they use and like.

I believe that the Viacom/YouTube litigation, or something like it, is going to be a very important piece of litigation. That case may end up validating or eliminating a good number of Web 2.0 models.

The interesting thing about the Craigslist case is that Craigslist was held not to violate the Fair Housing Act, due to the safe harbor in the Communications Decency Act. The case is counter-intuitive when you compare its result to the potential result of similar business models, like traditional newspapers. Some may call to modify the CDA given the somewhat illogical difference in results.

The law is always going to lag new technology (or in this case, new uses of existing technology). Even if the law isn’t known for certain, however, there are frequently ways to mitigate risks.
Welcome to my world.

Paul

Comment from emmett e childress , jr.
Time: July 21, 2007, 3:50 pm

Paul ,
What are your thoughts regarding web based radio and the archaic royalty and copyright laws currently in existence?

What advice would you give a publisher regarding a special release (Harry Potter book) when distributors can easily leak a product’s contents to the Web?