Posted on

Pinterest’s Future

There have been a lot of blog posts and articles about Pinterest and how copyright claims may affect its future. I agree with the sentiment that Pinterest’s opt-out system is a clumsy response to the situation, but their phenomenal growth to this point may be their saving grace. I wrote a bit about the dust-up last week between Pinterest and content providers

If Pinterest had a fraction of the users that it has now, some copyright holders may have already tried to shut it down. By utilizing the DMCA safe harbor, Pinterest has been able to operate and expand to the point that many copyright holders are seeing the advantage of such a wide reaching platform.

To take advantage of this situation, Pinterest may need to make some changes. After they talked with Kristen Kowaiski, it sounds like Pinterest may be making some changes after all. Here are a couple of things I see:

  1. By its terms of service, Pinterest asserts the right to copy and even sell whatever a person pins on a board.   Even if it’s a right never exercised by Pintererest, the specter of such a term will have a chilling effect on participation by those who want to pin their own work.
  2. The opt-out plan is not workable.  An opt-in system would be much better for the web ecosystem in general and show greater respect for the copyrights of creative publishers. Granted, if Pinterest was just starting, it would never get the traction for people to opt-in. Now, though, with the number or users and all the buzz, the incentives are there for the people Pinterest would likely want to opt-in to do so (potential advertisers and content providers).

There is speculation about how Pinterest will make money, and I have some guesses as well. Pinterest’s appearance could be adversely affected by the inclusion of ads unless they are very subtle. That would be particularly problematic since so much of the buzz has been about how Pinterest is revolutionizing page design.

The real potential is in data mining the interests of its users based on their pins and predicting other interest based on them.  This can allow for targeted advertising, not just on Pinterest’s site, but on third party sales sites.  Imagine going to Amazon.com and seeing ads for things related to what you have pinned on your board, or that people similar to you have pinned.

Facebook does things like this, but I think “pinning” could provide an even better indication of what a user might spend their money on than “liking.” To reach this potential, Pinterest has to avoid scaring off content providers and users. Time will tell if they can.

 

Posted on

Facebook Sued for Custom URLs

EveryMD v. Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich (C.D. California)

PatentlyO made me aware of an interesting story this morning.  Their write up is a good summary about the complaint and how the plaintiff is suing the Republican presidential candidates and others who have created business pages on Facebook, Facebook itself, and other business page users for infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,644,122.  What I find interesting is the language of the claim 1.

1. A method for providing individual online presences for a each of a plurality of members of a group of members by an interface server computer comprising the steps of:

maintaining a database comprising information associated with each of said plurality of members at a database system connected to said interface server computer;

allotting individual URLS to each of said plurality of members by associating an individual URL with each individual member of said plurality of members in said database system;

associating an individual home page for each said individual member of said plurality of members with said individual URL allotted to said individual member in said database system, said individual home page comprising information from said database associated with said individual member; a first control for submitting a comment about said individual member; and a second control separate from said first control for sending a message other than said comment to said individual member;

receiving by said interface server an online request for said individual URL from a requesting source;

providing said individual home page by said interface server computer to said requesting source.

All the steps (maintaining, allotting, associating, receiving, and providing) would arguably be done only by Facebook, not the individual users.  The complaint makes no reference to it, but I assume there must be a theory of vicarious liability.  Either the users are liable for contributory infringement, or actively inducing infringement by Facebook.  I don’t see a strong argument for inducement, but contributory infringement could be applied.

One possible argument would be that a request, sent by a user, for an individual URL, is required for Facebook to carry out the second-to-last step of the claim.  Those requests arguably have no substantial non-infringing use because they can only be denied or granted.  Granting the request results in providing the individual homepage (i.e., the last step).

The infringement issues are intriguing, but we may never hear a court rule on them.  The claims are very broad and could be invalidated in a pending inter partes reexamination with Facebook.

Here is a comment I left on the PatentlyO blog:

Sean Connolly said…

I agree that all the elements seem to read only on the entity operating the system, not the individual users. I don’t see where the individual business owners have liability unless the plaintiff has some new theory of contributory infringement. The claim can’t be infringed without the actions of a user.

One element of the independent claim is “receiving by said interface server an online request for said individual URL from a requesting source…” Does a request from a business user for a static URL have a non-infringing use? Would it matter?

Now I’m wondering about other services.  The patent has a priority date of 1999.  Were there any web services before then offering custom URLs?  I’m thinking of early blogging sites, bulletin boards, and other such services.  Does a “individual URL” include any static URL?  Does the broadest reasonable reading of claim 1 cover the simple act of registering a domain name?

 

Posted on

Amazing Customer Service From Apple

This doesn’t necessarily fit with the theme of this blog, but when a company treats me this well, I feel compelled to talk about it.

I purchased a used 2008 MacBook Air a year and a half ago. The machine had Apple Care, Apple’s transferable extended warranty. My wife was using it and unfortunately the hard disk had to be replaced.  Apple handled the repair quickly.  However, it happened again, this time after the expiration of the Apple Care plan.  Apple again repaired the machine quickly, but we were nervous about this becoming a recurring issue.

The third time the machine started to act up, my wife took it into the local Apple Store. The manager looked at the service history and surmised that the problem would likely keep repeating itself. He gave us a choice: either repair

The new MacBook Air in the home office

the machine for a third time in a year, or he would replace it with another 13 inch MacBook Air.  Of course, a new (mid 2011) MacBook Air is a bit of an upgrade.  Okay, it’s a huge upgrade. I no longer even have a hard disk since this machine has an SSD.  I am also now running Lion instead of Snow Leopard.

Granted, Apple may be saving itself more headaches with continued repairs, but this went beyond what I would have expected.  My next purchase will be an Apple Care plan for this notebook.

Posted on

Pinterest and Copyright Infringement

Pinterest has a remarkable story.  They’ve grown faster than even they could have hoped and now have millions of users “pinning” their favorite things from the web onto the users’ boards.

Of course, some brands love the grassroots advertising this provides, and many content providers appreciate the exposure.  In many cases Pinterest and other social media sites are driving more traffic to sites than search engines.  That is all well and good until someone doesn’t want their content copied and pinned.

Enter Pinterest and its response to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  The DMCA can make ISPs and online publishers liable for copyright infringement by their users, unless they take certain actions to fall within the safe harbor provisions.  Pinterest does this and even blogged about it this week.

I think Pinterest’s strategy of providing code for a meta tag that will prevent pinning of content from a page having that tag (an opt-out) is a bit short sighted.  But what I really found interesting were the comments from the content providers.

Now excuse me while I go find a plugin for WordPress so this post can be pinned.

Posted on

Mentoring

Today is “I’m a Mentor” social media day. I have really enjoyed mentoring through TeamMates and I hope some of my friends consider doing it as well. TeamMates and other mentoring organizations do a lot of good and are well worth your time and support.

Check out their Facebook event.