eldavojohn writes "You might recall back in June when it was noted that North Korea was developing and exporting flash games. Now, the isolated nation state is apparently home to some game developers that are being published by a subsidiary of News Corp. (The games include Big Lebowski Bowling and Men In Black). Nosotek Joint Venture Company is treading on thin ice in the eyes of a few academics and specialists that claim the Fox News owner is 'working against US policy.' Concerns grow over the potential influx of cash, creating better programmers that are then leveraged into cyberwarfare capabilities. Nosotek said that 'training them to do games can't bring any harm.' The company asserts its innocence, though details on how much of the games were developed in North Korea are sparse. While one of the poorest nations in the world could clearly use the money, it remains to be seen if hardliner opponents like the United States will treat Nosotek (and parent company News Corp.) as if they're fostering the development of computer programmers inside the DPRK. The United Nations only stipulates that cash exchanged with companies in the DPRK cannot go to companies and businesses associated with military weaponry or the arms trade. Would you feel differently about Big Lebowski Bowling if you knew it was created in North Korea?"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

If you have read/used Maps for Advocacy we would love to get your feedback! All questions with a (*) are mandatory.

You will be hard pressed to find someone who find the practise of applying technology locks to someone elses property more reprehensible than I do. This is what I feel of the practise of companies like Apple and Sony who sell technology where they, not the owner, retain the keys to the technology and treat their owners as attackers of their own property. I believe that this practise should be clearly outlawed, while backward facing legislation such as the Conservative Bill C-32 seeks to legally protect it.

While this is true, I recommend against what has become the most common form of jailbreaking.

Read full article in IT World Canada's blog >>

read more

One of the features of this site is an interface to send a letter to your MP. We are in the process of drafting a new letter which focuses on Bill C-32 and TPMs. There is an existing general copyright letter which I've updated that may be more what you would like to send.

The main purpose is to ensure MPs are aware of your interest in copyright, and possibly to be willing to speak with us before or during committee hearings on C-32.
MPs return to parliament on September 20'th, and the earlier we start conversations the better.

read more

We have a number of sample letters you may wish to send to your member of parliament.

Current letters

You can send these letters unmodified, or mix-and-match ideas from them into your own. They are sample letters which you are encouraged to personalise before sending.

Letter focused on C-32

Themes: 1996 WIPO treaty ratification, claim Canadian law is weak or harming copyright holders, complexity of bill, C-32 FAQ.

General Copyright letter

Themes: balance vs unrepresentative intermediaries, TPMs on devices, Sony-BMG Rootkit, homeland security, petitions, C-32 FAQ

Postal Code lookup

Request that the database used to determine the MP from a postal code be publicly released. Search for PCFRF on this site for more information. Currently it costs $2,900.00 for the first file, and an additional $500 per update after that (updates twice yearly).

Historical letters
Still useful to read if you wish to send a similar, but updated letter to your MP.

General Copyright letter

Generic letter talking about Copyright, past Bill C-60, and the upcoming copyright bill (Still useful in Dec 2007/Jan 2008)

French General Copyright letter

A volunteer translated the above letter if you wish to send it in French.

FLOSS Outreach project

Letter informing MP about the FLOSS outreach project

Private Copying levy

In February 2007 the Canadian Private Copying Collective submitted a proposal to the Copyright Board to apply a levy on "Removable electronic memory cards in the Secure Digital, MultiMedia", "digital audio recorders; and" "any medium prescribed by regulations pursuant to sections 79 and 87 of the Act (support audio vierge)". Even though the Federal Court of Appeal has already disallowed a similar levy proposal, the Copyright Board approved the levy. Many Canadians, including musicians, oppose this levy as being unfair.

December 2007/January 2008 pre-bill letter

While a new copyright bill was expected in December 2007, it is now delayed until after the end of January 2008 when parliament returns. This letter is intended to be sent prior to that bill being tabled to let MPs know your concerns. It is focused on the 1996 WIPO Internet treaties, a very controversial treaty, and something we have been told will be part of the bill.

French version of the above pre-bill letter

Thank go to Raymond Lutz for this translation.

Please encourage others to send letters as well.

Watch the count of letters rise.

Please also sign the Petition for Users' Rights and the Petition to protect Information Technology property rights.

read more

An anonymous reader writes "Given the history of ACTA leaks, to no one's surprise, the latest version of the draft agreement (PDF) was leaked last night on KEI's website. The new version — which reflects changes made during an intense week of negotiations last month in Washington — shows a draft agreement that is much closer to becoming reality. Perhaps the most important story of the latest draft is how the countries are close to agreement on the Internet enforcement chapter. In the face of opposition, the US has dropped its demands on secondary liability for ISPs but is still holding out hope of establishing a super-DMCA with digital lock rules that go beyond the WIPO Internet treaties and were even rejected by US courts."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The Iso writes "Las Vegas based company Righthaven found two articles from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle reprinted on her web site without permission, so it did what it always does: bought the rights to the articles from the Review-Journal and sued the alleged infringer, seeking unspecified damages."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

pickens writes "The LA Times reports that 84-year-old Cuban ex-President Fidel Castro consumes 200 to 300 news items a day on the World Wide Web. In a recent interview he called Web communication 'the most powerful weapon that has existed' and extolled its power to break a stranglehold on the media by 'the empire' and 'ambitious private groups that have abused it' adding that the Internet 'has put an end to secrets.... We are seeing a high level of investigative journalism, as the New York Times calls it, that is within reach of the whole world.' Well, not the whole world. Cuba has the lowest level of Internet penetration in the Western Hemisphere (lower than Haiti), plus severe government restrictions and censorship affecting those who do have access. In addition Cuban law bans using the Internet to spread information that is against what the government considers to be the social interest, norms of good behavior, the integrity of the people or national security."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

If Nevada gubernatorial candidate Eugene "Gino" DiSimone gets his way, $25 will buy you the right to drive up to 90mph for a day. DiSimone estimates his "free limit plan" will raise $1 billion a year for Nevada. From the article: "First, vehicles would have to pass a safety inspection. Then vehicle information would be loaded into a database, and motorists would purchase a transponder. After setting up an account, anyone in a hurry could dial in, and for $25 charged to a credit card, be free to speed for 24 hours."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

I guess you heard that the Texas attorney general has opened an investigation into antitrust complaints against Google, complaints lodged by Foundem, SourceTool, and myTriggers.com. Them again? Their complaints are not new. Here's Google's blog post about it.

And likely you heard about that utterly tasteless ad in Times Square from Consumer Watchdog, a cartoon of a creepy looking Eric Schmidt handing ice cream to children and asking for their secrets.

I think I can explain both events, because they are part of one campaign. Or as American Lawyer describes [PDF] the lawyers behind this, they are on a crusade against Google. The article is titled "The Google-Slayers". Guess who the lawyers on this crusade have as a client? Microsoft. They handle Microsoft's antitrust work. Guess who sent the first complainant to these lawyers, which led to this crusade? Microsoft. The jumping off point.

So. A crusade to destroy Google. By folks who count Microsoft as an important client, with new clients, at least one of them directly referred to the "crusaders" by Microsoft and the rest now under their umbrella. My stars, gentlemen. Where is your subtlety?

But there's more.

Hugh Pickens writes "The AP reports that Texas' attorney general, Greg Abbott, has opened an anti-trust investigation against Google spurred by complaints that the company has abused its power as the Internet's dominant search engine. The review appears to be focused on whether Google is manipulating its search results to stifle competition. European regulators already have been investigating complaints alleging that Google has been favoring its own services in its results instead of rival websites and several lawsuits have also been filed in the US that have alleged Google's search formula is biased. However Google believes Abbott is the first state attorney general to open an antitrust review into the issue."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

onreserve writes with an excerpt from a site dedicated to laws affecting wine: "[L]ast week, Australia signed an agreement with the European Union to comply with the geographical indicator (GI) system of the EU. The new agreement replaces an agreement signed in 1994 between the two wine powers and protects eleven of the EU drink labels and 112 of the Australian GI's. Specifically, this means that many of the wine products produced in Australia that were previously labeled according to European names, such as sherry and tokay, will no longer be labeled under these names. Wine producers in Australia will have three years to 'phase out' the use of such names on labels. Australian labels that will be discontinued include amontillado, Auslese, burgundy, chablis, champagne, claret, marsala, moselle, port, and sherry."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

[The "Life Is Too Short" print...]

I first started playing with the idea of “Smarter-Conversations” way back in 2004, the same year gapingvoid really started getting traction in the blogopsphere.

Though not something I talk about day-in-day-out, it’s always been there somewhere in the background, informing everything I work on. Here are some notes:

1. In the seminal book, “The Cluetrain Manifesto”, the great Doc Searls famously declared, “Markets are conversations”. If you buy that premise (and I do, wholeheartedly), then quod erat demonstratum, if you want your marketing to be smarter (i.e. more effective), you need to be having a “Smarter Conversation”.

2. “Conversation” is a metaphor. Making your product sleek, elegant and graceful while all your other competitors make their product look cheap, plastic and clunky is a smarter conversation. Not all conversations need words.

3. It’s not just what you say, its how you say it. Calling it the “iPod” is a smarter conversation than say, the “MZT-2300-B Electronic Portable MP3 Digital Hand Device”.

4. Smarter Conversations scale. That’s what I really like about it. Anyone can have a smarter conversation- from a mom n’ pop pizza joint to a Fortune 500 company. It can happen in a Superbowl ad or on printed on the back of a paper napkin. You can start one on a blog today, for free. Or on Twitter or Facebook. The tools don’t necessarily have to change, the way you talk to people has to change.

5. Deciding to have a smarter conversation isn’t a business decision, it’s a moral decision. Like I said in the last point, the barriers to entry are zero. While your competition treats their customers like idiots, you treat your customers like intelligent human beings. You don’t do that because your accountant told you to, you do that because that’s who you are.

6. The Smarter Conversation’s value comes from, I believe, not by yet more increased business efficiencies, but by its humanity. For example, take two well-known airlines. They both perform a useful service. They both deliver value. They both cost about the same to fly to New York or Hong Kong. Both have nice Boeings and Airbuses. Both serve peanuts and drinks. Both serve “airline food”. Both use the same airports. But one airline has friendly people working for them, the other airline has surly people working for them. One airline has a sense of fun and adventure about it, one has a tired, jaded business-commuter vibe about it. Guess which one takes the human dimension of their business more seriously than the other? Guess which one still will be around in twenty years? Guess which one will lose billions of dollars worth of shareholder value over the next twenty years? What parallels do you see in your own industry? In your own company?

7. If Smarter Conversations work, it’s because they help humanize the company. I wrote about this years ago in an article I called “The Porous Membrane”. To paraphrase: Ideally, you want the conversation between customers [the external market] to be as identical as the conversation between yourselves [the internal market]. The things that your customer is passionate about, you should also be passionate about. This we call “alignment”. A good example would be Apple. The people at Apple think the iPod is cool, and so do their customers. They are aligned. When you are no longer aligned with your customers is when the company starts getting into trouble. When you start saying your gizmo is great and your customers are telling everybody it sucks, then you have serious misalignment. So how do you keep misalignment from happening? The answer lies the cultural membrane that separates you from them. The more porous the membrane, the easier it is for conversations between you and them, the internal and external, to happen. The easier for the conversations on both sides to adjust to the other, to become like the other. And nothing pokes holes in the membrane better than blogging.

8. Social Media is not about reaching a mass audience. Social Media is not about creating yet another sales channel. Social Media is about allowing the Smarter Conversation to happen. That’s all. Why do some companies lose, while other companies win? Because the latter has a smarter “conversation” with its customers. Zappos had a smarter conversation about the power of customer service and the power of company culture. Peet’s Coffee came along 20 years ago and began a smarter conversation about coffee with millions of people within a very short space of time. Target’s recent massive success started from a smarter conversation about good design. Savile Row tailor, Thomas Mahon came along and, with his blog, had a smarter conversation about $4000 English bespoke suits. Lucky’s Juice Joint had a smarter conversation about fresh-squeezed. Big companies, medium companies and tiny companies, whatever- it was never about size, it was never about the choice of media (social or otherwise), it was all about language. 

9. Social Media allows you to cheaply and quickly begin a smarter conversation. And once you get it going, that conversation starts bleeding out into all other areas of your business- including advertising, PR and corporate communications.

10. Ask not what tools you want to use, ask how you want to change how you talk to people. All evolutions in marketing are evolutions in language. Those who can raise the level of conversation in any market, win.

11. Start today. It’s never too late to begin a Smarter Conversation. Like I said, money or time is not the issue. Making the decision is the issue, and only you can do that.

jamie writes "A grassroots campaign has begun to get Stephen Colbert to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to counter Glenn Beck's recent 'Restoring Honor' event. The would-be rally has been dubbed 'Restoring Truthiness' and was inspired by a recent post on Reddit, where a young woman wondered if the only way to point out the absurdity of the Tea Party's rally would be if Colbert mirrored it with his own Colbert Nation.'"

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

[Originally posted  August, 2004. Some of it is a bit dated but there's still a lot there worth chewing on etc.]

How to have smarter conversations.

Somewhere along the the line I decided that embracing “Smarter Conversations” was preferable to prematurely consigning my career to the dustbin of history. I just wrote down some random thoughts:

1. Understand why what you’re offering to do for other people is interesting, important, meaningful etc then start telling people about it.

Think about this one. Hard. If you don’t know, then how will other people know? Exactly. They won’t.

2. Live like you know the difference between remarkable and unremarkable, like it matters to you.

The more “remarkable” matters to you, the more likely that it will appear in the product you’re selling. The more likely other people will notice it.

3. Seek out the exceptional minds.

This is my basic mantra. It’s a good one to have. Not everybody gets it. Their loss.

4. Start a blog.

Blogs are funny things. Say something smart, people pay attention. Say something dumb, you’re ignored. We big media folk just can’t seem to get our heads around that concept, for some reason. Regular blogging can help train you to better discern between smart and dumb. Makes it easier to extend this to the rest of one’s business.

5. Ruthlessly avoid working for companies that “don’t get it”.

Yeah, you may have to turn down a few gigs, and that can really hurt when the rent is due. Still, anything that’s easy to get isn’t worth having.

6. Ruthlessly avoid working for companies that think they know better than you.

Luckily, if you get the whole “smarter conversations” thing, their “Yes, Buts” will just seem rather empty. Making them easier to “toss out like old furniture”.

7. Be nice.

Smarter conversations are fuelled by goodwill. Lose it and die.

8. Be honest.

Again, smarter conversations are fuelled by goodwill etc.

9. Karma is key.

But you already know that. Or you’re stupid. No middle ground on this one, sorry.

10. Listen.

Tongues are dumber than brains, brains are dumber than ears etc.

[Originally posted September, 2005]

An offline discussion I’ve been having a lot recently:

1. If you want to become an authority in whatever industry you are in, you must engage in what I call “Smarter Conversations”.

2. Deciding to do so is not a business decision. It’s a moral decision.

Your call.

[Originally posted November,2007]

Chris Schroeder riffs on my whole “Social Object” marketing schtick with this very salient thought:

If your company wants to succeed, it needs to have a social object marketing plan.

Amen to that. But note what Chris also says:

I don’t know about you, but when somebody walks by with an iPhone, I notice. If I see a kid stroll by me in some limited edition Nikes, that registers with me too.

Therein lies the rub. The Social Object idea is easy to get if your product is highly remarkable, highly sociable. An iPhone or the latest pair of Nike’s are both fine examples of this.
But I can already hear your inner MBA saying, “Yeah, but what if you don’t work for Nike or Apple? What if your product is boring home loans, auto insurance or… [the list of boring products is pretty long].
My standard answer to that is, “Social Gestures beget Social Objects.”
Which is another way of saying, maybe the way you relate to somebody as a human being plays a part in all this. Maybe describing the product as “boring” is just one more bullshit lie we tell ourselves in order to make the world seem less complicated and scary. Hey, my product is inherently dull and boring, therefore I get to be inherently dull and boring, too. Hooray!
Nowadays, thanks to folk like Nike, we think of sneakers as “non-boring” brands. This wasn’t true when I was a kid. Back then sneakers were those bloody awful $3 plimsolls we wore in Phys Ed. But it took companies like Nike and Adidas to come along and by shear force of will, raise the level of conversation in the sneaker department, before sneakers became bona fide global social objects, bona fide global powerhouse brands.
The decision to raise the level of conversation isn’t economic. Nor is it an intellectual decision. It’s a moral decision. But whether you have the stomach for it is up to you.
Like I told Thomas almost 3 years ago re. English bespoke tailoring, “Own the conversation by improving the conversation.” And hey, it worked. His sales went up 300% in 6 months.
It wasn’t the change in product that made Thomas’ suits Social Objects. It was changing the way he talked to people. The same applies to Stormhoek, which 3 years ago was an $8 bottle of South African wine nobody had ever heard of. Conversation. Matters.
So all you corporate MBAs out there, here’s a little tip. When you planning on how to embrace the brave new world of Web 2.0, the first question you ask yourself should not be “What tools do I use?”
Blogs, RSS, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook- it doesn’t matter.
The first question you should REALLY ask yourself is:
“How do I want to change the way I talk to people?”
And hopefully the rest should follow.
Think about it.
[Bonus Link: For a more academic take on social objects, check out this post from Anthropologist, Jyri Engestrom.]

Darl's purchase of the mobility assets was all done pretty much in the dark. We, the public were told one thing in advance, but something else after the fact. But now we get to see the final agreement.

Darl and Me Inc Holdings LLC, Darl's LLC, got not only the copyrights but a patent application as well, including rights to sue for any past infringement. The patent is entitled "Systems and Methods for Providing Distributed Applications and Services for Intelligent Mobile Devices," and the application was filed in 2006, #11/533347. We were told in advance of the sale that this patent application was excluded, but then he got it anyway.

What was SCO thinking, I was asking myself as I read the agreement? I could just see it: "Darl sues Google's Android". Why not? Everyone else and his dog is. Of course there's some prior art on that method of making fast, easy money. Seriously, though, if you check the transaction history for this patent application with the USPTO's PAIR system, what you learn is fascinatingly funny.

At the time of the sale in April, the patent application was still working its way through the system. There was a non-final rejection notice that issued in January of 2010, which presumably Darl knew about if he did any due diligence. In July, post-sale, there was a request for more time to answer that notice and then they filed a reply. But on August 17, there was a final notice of rejection anyway of claims 1-17 and 19-20. Prior art and obviousness. Claim 18 had been "withdrawn from consideration" so the rejection was not only final but total. Darl has 3 months to reply, and, in some conceivable convoluted drag-it-out process the rejection outlines, it could last six months, tops. But it looks like Darl bought a pig in a poke.

And some of you say there is no God.

Have you added the free gapingvoid cartoon widget to your blog or website yet? Just askin’….

I have updated the MP database to reflect current MPs. All 307 sitting MPs should now be correct. If there are issues, let me know. I will work on creating a new letter for people to send Re: C-32.

The missing MP is in the riding of Winnipeg North which has been vacant since April 27, 2010, when Judy Wasylycia-Leis announced her retirement from federal politics. She is running for mayor of Winnipeg.