Jason Fortuny, the person resonsible for posting the fake profile, has the same attitude toward his online actions as many of the so-called internet marketers I’ve talked about previously. Perhaps the best example is this disturbing quote from Fortuny:

“If I made the mistake of telling secrets to someone I didn’t know online and it got out…I’d be kicking myself pretty hard. I would most definitely be shouting expletives at my computer screen. But that’s the risk we all take online, as well as in life. Whether it’s someone’s e-mail, picture, or personal ad, there’s no guarantee of identity, and no guarantee that you won’t be betrayed. And there never will be.”

That right there frightens the hell out of me. He agrees that being tricked into exposing your information and being humiliated online would be terrible – basically admitting that he did exactly what he’d hate have happen to himself. His reasoning seems to be that since the internet is already a risky place for your information, he may as well contribute to the problem by scamming people and humiliating them. This makes absolutely no sense. Just because there’s a bunch of people beating up on a kid in the corner doesn’t mean you should join in.

Many of the online dangers out there are perpetuated by individuals with the exact same attitude – that others are doing it, so why can’t I? It has taken the courts a while to catch up to the digital age – and while they still have some work to do – they are definitely making some progress. Sure, some things like the RIAA attacks are where the law has taken a few steps back, but hopefully there will soon be some accountability for these people who decide stepping on others is an acceptable means to an end.

Fortuny you decided to harm others for your own amusement. For that, I hope this court case finds in favor of the victim and if at all possible perhaps set a precedent for future scammers to be wary of.

This reminds me of the absurdity of Amazon’s One-Click patent which basically had Amazon controlling the rights to one click purchases on websites. Seems like something somebody made up as a spoof or something right? Well, I wish it was just a joke, and while Amazon’s One-Click patent was partially restricted, much of it still exists.

Most would agree that the United States patent and trademark system is incredibly flawed – especially when it comes to the internet, but it seems like nothing is being done to fix it. How can a company sue other companies for such an obvious “idea” like a wishlist? You aren’t supposed to take a common non-internet concept like a wishlist, apply it to the internet, and then patent the internet form of that concept. Of course, the patent in question is so broad that it’s hard to tell exactly what they “invented” that needed a patent – though odds are that their only invention was the patent itself to sue people who actually do anything with the technology.

Also, let me say that I’m definitely not one of those people who think all patents and trademarks should be removed. I think that those who genuinely do create something new and unique should be able to protect their inventions and profit from their ideas. However, patent trolls should not be allowed to abuse the system by hording vague patents on concepts that shouldn’t have even been patentable in the first place.

While it’s definitely a relief that at least some court out there isn’t going to hold a service provider responsible for the actions of its users, it also shows just how differently responsibility and blame is treated. With something as global as the internet, how are new services and technologies going to survive and grow if each region decides to handle the Web so differently? It’s not like this is the first case where a Web company has had to deal with such varying internet policies in different regions – Google censoring searches in China is a big one that jumps to mind.

The data Google is to hand over includes records of every video watched by YouTube users along with logs that include various user data (such as IP address and viewing histories). Google must also hand over copies of all videos it has ever taken down. Viacom did ask for more, such as YouTube’s source code and copies of all private videos, but the judge threw those requests out.

While this case is definitely similar to the eBay case in that Viacom is trying to hold Google responsible for the actions of its users, I can definitely see Viacom’s side here. If Google really is profitting mostly on copyrighted material uploaded to YouTube, then there’s definitely a big problem here. If Viacom can somehow find that Google made X dollars from Viacom’s properties, then yeah, I agree Viacom should be paid that money.

The issue right now, though, isn’t whether or not Viacom deserves any compensation from copyright infringement. No, the issue is how the heck can a judge order Google to hand over pretty much all its user data? The reason the judge is doing so is that apparently Viacom can get more money in the settlement if they find YouTube users watch copyrighted material more than user-created material. I don’t understand why Viacom is entitled to more money if copyrighted videos are watched more. To me, it should be as straightforward as giving Viacom a percentage of all profits Google has made off of copyrighted materials. Who cares about any other videos and why should Viacom be given access to any of that data?

Some of you may be screaming right now “what about the privacy issues?” Well, the judge is using Google’s own defense against privacy issues by saying IP addresses don’t really give away much personal information. I think I actually agree with this as well, so I don’t really see this being a big privacy thing. What I do have a problem with is that Viacom will basically be getting a huge amount of insider data on YouTube and how it works – which they could potentially use against Google down the line. Perhaps Viacom will start their own video site and use Google’s stats as a way of getting a leg up on them? Perhaps that’s a stretch, but I know I sure wouldn’t want another company being able to see how many users I have, what their viewing tendencies are, and what videos and pages are most popular – especially if that company has business related to the services I offer with my company.

Let’s make this case a whole lot simpler. Google shouldn’t be profitting off of Viacom’s copyrighted properties. As such, if Google has made $1 billion off Viacom’s copyrighted materials, Google should pay $1 billion to Viacom (or perhaps some agreed upon percentage of the number). Viacom and the courts should get access to any relevant data, which in the case should only consist of videos containing Viacom’s copyrighted material and user history relating to those specific videos. Viacom should not get access to any other data as it shouldn’t have any bearing on the case.

In the end, my main concern is that this may set some sort of precedent that any company out there can sue another company and perhaps get that company’s insider stats and secrets to maybe use against them in some way. While the judge didn’t go handing over YouTube’s source code, the detailed user stats he is making Google release could be considered much more valuable.

The funny thing here is that eBay actually does try to curb fake merchanise sales, but the sheer amount of auctions and products that go through eBay must make it pretty much impossible impossible to catch everything. And the thing is, why is it even eBay’s problem? It’s the same argument that RIAA brought up against p2p networks like Napster and Kazaa. These people claim that it’s the responsibility of the software company or service provider to regulate criminal activities. This is an absurd notion that could potentially cripple future technological advancements.

Anybody remember the old debate as to whether or not VCRs should be legal. Back in the day, some people actually believed VCRs should be banned because they allowed people to illegally record movies and other programs. Luckily courts ruled that the hardware allowed for completely legal benefits and that the technology shouldn’t be stiffled due to a few bad eggs misusing it. This argument protected some of the p2p networks for awhile, but apparently some courts have forgotten who is really the one breaking the law here – not eBay but rather the people using eBay illegally. Were the courts wrong decades ago? Perhaps VCRs should have been ruled illegal. VCRs, DVD players, CD players… they should all be banned! And since computers can basically copy anything, we better make using those illegal as well!

Okay, while I’m obviously against blaming eBay and other service providers for the criminal activities of others, I can definitely see the other side of the coin on this one and do understand why some people have a problem with eBay in this case. The truth is the Web just makes breaking the law so damn easy. However, just because it’s much easier to break the law on eBay than it is at your local swap meet, doesn’t mean you should be able to sue eBay and not the people who put on the swap meet when somebody is selling a cheap knockoff of your product at both.

If we keep heading down the path that France apparently wants us to head down, sites like eBay and Craigslist will soon be shut down. Heck, any website that allows any sort of visitor contributions could then technically be sued for anything a visitor does on that website – which would mean social networks, forums, blogs, and any number of other websites would be quickly targetted. My guess is that it will never get this bad because you can’t stop the Web’s progress, no matter how hard you try (though you can definitely slow it down).