adoption curve dot net

Sorry, I can’t leave the MGM v. Grokster case alone. Ben Hammersley, he of utility kilts and the Observer Blog nails exactly what I’ve been thinking:

Declaring filesharing illegal across the net because it’s illegal in the US is like declaring the web broken because it’s censored in China.

This seems to be following a distinctly unilateral trend for the US – what with their leadership’s attitude to climate change, Guantanamo and Iraq, the pattern seems to be one of “to hell with the rest of the world, we’ll go our own way”. To which the rest of the world replies “fine, we’ll get on with it, then.”

A casual browse of Tom Peters’ blog will throw up any number of statistics about the staggering size and power of the Chinese and Indian economies. Production of virtually everything from consumer electronics to clothing is the preserve of the Pacific Rim. The largest film industry is in Bollywood, not Hollywood. So what chance that a software developer in Beijing or Shanghai or Mumbai or Bangalore is going to pay any attention whatsoever to a pronouncement from the US Supreme Court?

There’s an interesting post on Open Loops about the pitfalls of accurately-estimating project durations – and specifically the problem of over-optimistic schedules:

Many project managers can be myopic in this area and not see the potential pot holes in the road ahead of their projects. Being aware of these stumbling blocks and developing a system to accurately project deadlines can bring projects in on time and underbudget.

The technique is an interesting mix of mindmapping and focussing on next actions – in other words, ensuring that you’ve got a realistic and robust work breakdown structure – as well as a formulaic calculation. It’s not clear whether the formula is a rule-of-thumb or has been derived from data, but it’s probably a useful starting point.

I’m always a little wary of formulas – when there’s a calculation to come up with an answer, there’s always a temptation to rely on this as a definitive God-given answer that has to be correct to five decimal places – but if people are involved as a factor, there’s a danger that you’re lucky if the answers are accurate to an order of magnitude.

Nevertheless, it’s a good technique for creating quick-and-dirty “straw men” for planning purposes, and the breakdown steps are a good way of approaching the planning process.

The simplest ideas are often the best, and this is a perfect demonstration.

A Cambridge-based paramedic has launched a national campaign with Vodafone to encourage people to store emergency contact details in their mobile phones.

Bob Brotchie, a clinical team leader for the East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust, hatched the plan last year after struggling to get contact details from shocked or injured patients.

By entering the acronym ICE – for In Case of Emergency – into the mobile’s phone book, users can log the name and number of someone who should be contacted in an emergency.

Brilliantly simple – it relys on a device that most of us carry all the time, without the need for any additional software, systems, databases etc.

The US Supreme Court finally released their verdict in the MGM v. Grokster case this afternoon, and the blogs are currently a-twitter with fevered speculation analysis of what it will all mean. My first thought was something along the lines of “oh well, best buy another iPod before the music business gets around to suing Apple out of existence”, but then I downloaded the verdict and a cursory read made me change my mind.

The summary opinion of the court states:

We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

IANAL, but that’s not the same as saying “one who distributes a device capable of infringing copyright is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties”. It’s stating what appears to be the bleeding obvious, to me at least – if you create a device that is capable of both legal and illegal uses and promote it as primarily for illegal uses, someone is going to get unhappy about that and take legal potshots at you.

So far from being the absolute and final last word (which was what I always understood the Supreme Court to be for, but IANAL) all I can see this doing is creating yet more work for lawyers, and yet more work for the RIAA and MPAA spin doctors who will be no doubt presenting this as a tremendous victory. Unfortunately for them, it doesn’t make their business models any less broken.

Perhaps the last word should go to Hilary Rosen, former record industry shill and lately someone who appears to be reaping that which she sowed:

…knowing we were right legally really still isn’t the same thing as being right in the real world.

The MIT Media Lab are conducting an online survey of the “greater weblog community” (their phrase), looking at the way blogs are used to communicate:

Our goal is to help understand the way that weblogs are affecting the way we communicate with each other. Specifically we are interested in issues of demographics, communication behaviors, experience with weblogs and other technology, and the meaning of various types of social links within the blogosphere.