In Dispraise of Haste

Which "haste-related" cautionary proverb comes first to your mind?  I thought of "Marry in haste, repent at leisure," which was a socially relevant warning in Britain and Europe for several generations thrust together and torn apart by World War I and World War II.

In recent eras of living together, and relatively easy divorce, there probably less need for "repenting at leisure," so that proverb has lost its power.... which may be why it is ranked #30/35.

Source: Inspirational Stories.com proverbs on haste.
https://www.inspirationalstories.com/proverbs/t/on-haste/

Are proverbs still taught in schools? For that matter, are the different names for the males and females of animal species still taught? "Tiger / Tigress", maybe but it seems doubtful that "Cob / Pen / Cygnet" for swans, or "Hart / Hind" (of red deer) and "Buck / Doe" (of roe deer) are taught.

Animal names
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/doe

"Click-through in haste..." might be a modern day proverb.

The ever-interesting Mark Sableman, blogging for the law firm Thompson Coburn LLP, discusses online contracts (with a topical pun about contracting disease), and explains the different degrees of how inextricably to bind a visitor, or to be bound as a visitor, to a contract that --in their haste-- they have not read.

Original Link:
https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/internet-law-twists-turns/post/2020-05-14/you-may-avoid-coronavirus-contacts-but-you-can-t-avoid-online-contracts#page=1

Lexology Link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6f1da6a7-56a4-4c18-8f3d-2c744f7b9a11

It reminds me a bit of a marital pre-nuptial contract!

Seriously, if you surf the internet a lot, or if you have your own website, or blog, you ought to read Mark Sableman's explanations of browse-wrap, click-wrap (or click-through), and sign-in wrap.

European readers of this blog should understand that the authors of this group blog do remind readers periodically that Blogspot will drop cookies on you, (it's browse-wrappy), and Google does post generic notices about the terms of use that you are inferred to agree with and to by sticking around.

Online contracts can be very secure, and safer than you would think, and they hold up well in court.  Thus, one should read an E-sign contract very carefully indeed, and not merely click merrily away to provide 7 (or however many) initials and 2 signatures in your choice out of 5 available fonts.

Legal blogger Tyler G, Newby, writing for Fenwick & West LLP, gives a fascinating historical overview of contracts, going back to the signet ring and hot sealing wax to the present day Docu-Sign (or its rivals such as Authentisign), and explains that such convenient services provide a time-and-date stamped audit trail  that may include the signer's IP address.

Of course, too, there is the clickwrap or click through and sign in protection for the professional who sends a link in an email to the expected signer.

For readers interested in how much copyright infringement has increased during the Covid-19 shut down, MUSO has a free, downloadable "white paper". It comes with click wrap, you have to give them your name and email address... but it might be interesting enough to be worth giving them the data, and possibly receiving follow up emails from MUSO.

https://www.muso.com/white-paper-demand-discovery?utm_campaign=COVID-19%20Protect%20&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=88156774&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-92B76dMP1rBc2xvht7vDqlzhChwXeYH-GGsTVaL3B6_aOiXEnexlgriwMhuv35_T2oUwbU8dyrNfvG9G1H767syhNUjQ&_hsmi=88156774

Talking of privacy, and marketing (which I do, often), Zarish S. Baig, blogging for Squire Patton Boggs, discusses the suspicions of some that third party marketers may listen in on private smart phone conversations.

https://tcpaworld.com/2020/05/13/googles-privacy-policy-cant-save-it-from-smartphone-spying-claim-california-privacy-laws-tested-in-suit-alleging-big-tech-is-letting-subcontractors-listen-in-on-your-conversations/#page=1

It would appear, the above average internet user is also expected to read any ISP's Privacy Policy, especially if they purchase and use a device capable of recording anything.

Apropos hastiness and insecurity, if Zooming, or Facetiming, or otherwise broadcasting a live video of yourself, bear in mind that more of your background than you might expect might be exposed.  We've all seen the accidentally-on-purpose naked roomies caught over the shoulders of vloggers; the over casual anchor without his trousers who spread his legs a little wide under his desk, and his bare thigh crept into view; and then there is the prince who did not realize that he had official secrets on an open file in his background.

Derek M. Stikeleather, for Goddell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP shares Kim Kardashian's tips for looking fabulous while teleconferencing, and much more.

https://www.gdldlaw.com/blog/what-kim-kardashian-and-prince-william-can-teach-us-about-remote-oral-arguments

All the best,
Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Willy Nilly and the Erosion of Privacy

Does personal privacy matter? Less so, it seems, in the age where a priority is put on the convenience of others and the profitability of "data", whether the subject of the eroded privacy likes it or not.

"Willy Nilly" harks back to the Old English for "will he" and "ne-will he", "ne" being the negative prefix which is not usually cited in online dictionaries. Most resources condense "ne-will" to "nill", but not all.

Millennials don't seem to mind.  Authors are accustomed to having to give up some privacy as a trade off for pursuing a career, and some authors use pen names... and sometimes, a pen name is not the guarantee of privacy that it used to be.

Perhaps, it is not a good thing for all those sites --that post disclaimers asking paid users to refrain from making employment, or housing, or lending, or other important decisions about the person whose alleged info they are selling online-- to be allowed to monetize private information.  They don't always get it right.  Even if they did get everything right, that information tends to deny persons a fair chance or a second chance.

It is divisive.

Ironically, to read a Loeb and Loeb legal blog article about privacy, you have to accept cookies.
https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2020/02/new-uspto-rule-makes-trademark-owner-email-and-mailing

Lexology link.

Loeb and Loeb LLP legal bloggers Melanie Howard, David W. Grace and Ashley Van Leer explain for the benefit of trademark owners how new USPTO rules make trademark owners' street addresses and email addresses available to the public. Authors cannot hide behind their intellectual properties attorney any more.

That is lovely for the "Person-Locator-type" internet businesses that sell personal information, and also for scammers, robocallers, spear phishers, and other common varieties of spammers... and advertisers and marketers.

By the way, on the subject of government helpfulness.... the Copyright Office will be raising many fees as of March 20th, 2020. (Not for photographers.)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-02-19/pdf/2020-03268.pdf

Reverting to advertising and targeting, and the annoying loss of privacy, the Charles Russell Speechlys LLP  UK focused legal blog has some must-read insights into data driven online targeting.

Lexology link.

Original:
https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/commercial/2020/2020-update-data-driven-online-targeting/

Legal blogger Olivia Crane does a deep dive into what data-driven online targeted advertising means, especially for Britons. This author sympathizes with Olivia Crane's unpleasant experience with shower curtains.

I had a similar experience recently with a synthetic planking product that popped up and virtually stalked me wherever I went (online).  This was after I made a purchase which I regret to this day... so where was the commercial sense in metaphorically bludgeoning me with a Lumber product?

It seems to me, the sensible advertisement targeters might be using "targeting" in much the same way as click-fraud.  "This woman recently bought a new roof for her house (usually a 15 - 30 year warrantied purchase), let's sell her name to roofers, so they can try --in vain-- to sell her a new roof!"

Most authors use Facebook, too.  The Socially Aware legal blog asks, "Are your facebook posts discoverable?"  Of course they are!
https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2020/02/24/are-your-facebook-posts-discoverable-application-of-the-forman-test-in-new-york/#page=1

Lexology.

J. Alexander Lawrence and Lily Smith for Morrison Foerster LLP give chapter and verse on how far your privacy can be eroded and information you shared semi-privately on Facebook can be exploited and used against you in a court of law.

So, if you are ever going to sign a lease to rent a home that says "No cats", and having an illicit cat is grounds for eviction, do not post photos of your beloved cat on your Facebook page with distinctive features of said rental house in the background... for example.

Finally, for readers who love fine art, your ability to acquire anonymously is receeding, as Andrea N. Perez, writing for Carrington Coleman explains.
https://www.ccsb.com/our-firm/publish/loss-of-privacy-rights-when-purchasing-art/

Lexology.

Art lovers are presumed to be terrorists and/or money launderers until they prove otherwise according to the EU's Fifth Directive.

What an excellent book title "The Fifth Directive" would be!

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

"Stifling Creativity" AKA The Profitable Ingenuity Of The Lawless

Applying bricks-and-mortar laws to the internet would "stifle creativity" and prevent "the sharing" of "information" and generally "end the internet as we know and love it". Such is the gist of the so-far-successful opponents of the controversial copyright law that was just rejected by the EU Parliament.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44712475

"Critics said the laws would stifle creativity..."

Allow this author to translate. The "creativity" that would be stifled" by a reform of European copyright laws is not the genius of authorship, musicianship, cinematic film making, or the artistry of a photographer or painter. No, it is the profitable ingenuity of thieves.

"Sharing"..."information", is usually a matter of monetizing stolen creations of others. Pirate sites don't publish and distribute helpful advice or uncommon knowledge. Their "information" is more likely to be illegal copies of movies, games, works of fiction, music. And, they don't "share" like one neighbor does to another over the garden fence. They broadcast (like tossing seeds in a wide arc over a ploughed --or plowed-- field), usually for the purpose of payment from advertisers.

Legal blogger Gill Grassie for the law firm Brodies LLP  examines what is legally or logistically unacceptable about the draconian Article 13 of the EU proposal.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=06f30201-e4c4-4756-8035-a7c35b486bf2

To wit, bigger platforms might have been obliged to prevent copyright infringing work from being uploaded by users.  Additionally, websites might have had to pay a license fee for displaying  snippets of text snagged
(my term) from published  articles.

By contrast, and from the sharp end, here's a fine video analysis of piracy by film maker Ellen Seidler of who profits from piracy, and how, and why. (It's from 2012, but still relevant.).
https://thetrichordist.com/2012/04/03/who-profits-from-piracy/

If lawmakers were to intellectually follow the money, they might do a better job of protecting creators. Perhaps the wrong Congressional and legislative bodies are looking at the problem... and of course, too many lawmakers are campaign-funded and lobbied by entities that find piracy profitable.

Aatif Sulleyman for the Trusted Reviews site examines the reasons produced in a 2018 survey on why Britons steal online.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/piracy-reasons-copyright-infringement-3501618

It seems to boil down to the love of a freebie. It's free, and it's convenient. Or at least, that is the popular perception.

(But, all this "free" stuff is ruining musicians' livelihoods. A musician debunks the idea of touring and T-shirts as an adequate substitute for record sales, and points out that concert performances provide zero income for songwriters:  https://thetrichordist.com/2018/07/11/a-timely-repost-the-economics-of-mid-tier-touring-from-someone-who-has-done-it-for-34-years/ )

Aatif Sulleyman wrote this, about watermarking.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/piracy-future-covert-watermarking-free-stream-3483149

This author never expected a search for "remove watermarks on copyrighted content" to produce any search results at all. Wrong!
https://www.google.com/search?q=remove+watermarks+on+copyrighted+content&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab

Colour me shocked.
On the other hand, the same socially responsible purveyors of useful information will also assist bricks-and-mortar perps.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&ei=LmpLW8KjIOrCjwT41IDwAg&q=How+to+crack+a+safe&oq=How+to+crack+a+safe&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.213654.229082.0.238308.58.33.0.0.0.0.112.2566.31j1.32.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..38.20.1528...33i22i29i30k1j0i273k1j0i131k1j0i67k1.0.sypCEQvBLpE

I should probably now clear my cookies... and so, dear reader, should you.

The host of this blog (Blogspot) puts cookies on visitors' devices, and conveniently infers that visitors agree to deer-tick-like cookies piling on and burrowing in. Most sites to which this article has linked make the same inference.

Although "Cookie Consent" is the new panic according to legal blogger Eduardo Usteran, blogging for Hogan Lovells, blogs and websites have been obliged to let visitors know about their no-opt-out cookies
since an EU directive in 2009.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9192c959-3e9f-4288-aef1-5e4c8740b0cd&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-07-05&utm_term=

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Communication Rights; Reproduction Rights... Repeatedly Targeting Women With Smart Phones

For those who think I am going to talk about SEX... I am not. I'm banging on about copyright, as is my wont.

Copyright law gives authors the exclusive right to reproduce their own copyrighted works (or to authorize or prohibit any copy of their works). In Europe at least, it also gives authors the exclusive right to communicate, or to authorize or prohibit any communication to the public of their copyrighted works.

This author has known many authors who upload short stories to their own websites, intending the short stories to be free for new and established readers to enjoy on the authors' own websites, or, if the authors say so, for visitors to the authors sites to download for personal, private reading.

Anyone who snags those free stories and publishes them elsewhere for their own glory or profit is a copyright infringer, at least in the EU.  Anyone who downloads those free stories from an unauthorised third part is also a copyright infringer.

Blogger Luke Moulton of the law firm Wright Hassall LLP has penned a very helpful and quite lengthy article explaining Communication Rights and Reproduction Rights and much more.  He also has a very clear chart explaining the difference between legal and not-legal uses of other peoples' copyrighted work.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0b1b4f34-6037-4731-95f5-db8b02f53c27&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-05-19&utm_term=

In Europe at least, it is also copyright infringement to sell "loaded" media devices, whether they are loaded with copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, or whether they are loaded with links to pirate sites where copyrighted works have been uploaded illegally. And, it is copyright infringement for the purchaser of such a device to click on the links to pirate sites and to download the illegally uploaded works on the pirate site.

So, there you have it!

Thank you, Luke Moulton!

Prolific legal blogger Mark Sableman of Thompson Coburn LLP is worth following! With his Sweepstakes Law blog, he's hit at least three home-runs with recent fascinating articles.

In this one...
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=df1b5725-7c70-4b1b-9d13-2f15b0d1485a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-05-19&utm_term=

... he explains rules for news aggregators. I assume that my summary of the best of the best of legal copyright-related analysis could be an "aggregation". It's relatively easy blog fodder. Someone else does the leg work. All the aggregator has to do is read a week's worth of good stuff, and select the most interesting and most relevant to her audience.

The redeeming feature of aggregation is that the polite aggregator sends her readers valuable eyeballs to the original copyright owner's site though links and attribution. It's only copyright infringement if the aggregator copies so much of the original content that interested visitors don't need to click through to the original.

Mark Sableman does point out some exceptions to the etiquette, especially where Europeans are concerned.

Finally, please forgive the required periodic reminder to our European visitors about Google cookies.
You cannot avoid them. The authors of this blog cannot prevent Google from slipping sticky cookies into your devices.

European Union laws may require us (the authors using Blogger) to obtain your consent for Google to put their Blogger and Analytics and AdSense and Google "cookies" on your machines. Since we cannot do that, we advise you that we deem you to have accepted Google cookies by virtue of visiting this blog.

We may also be obliged by strict compliance with EU law to give you "information" about "cookies".  Cookies are some kind of code that leaps like deer ticks and leeches on anyone and everyone who comes within range. They tell Google who you are, where you came from, where you go, and what you appear to like. This is so Google can sell targeted advertising.  Therefore, if you don't want to be offered opportunities to buy stuff that you really don't want or need, and cannot afford, clear your cookies as often as you can stand to do so. You may do so by clearing your History (which will also probably log you out of your favourite sites), or by viewing your Preferences and deleting all the parasitic cookies. And, once you have done it, you may have to do it a second time, because, as I said, these things are sticky.

PS. Mark Sableman addresses something like cookies on steroids with an account of an outrageous case where the cell phones of women who entered a health clinic (for any reason) were bombarded for up to 30 days thereafter with unsolicited and "mobile" advertisements for "abortion alternatives".

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e73c3614-0032-4ff9-8487-a364e41c7e71

And we all thought that pregnant ladies had the right to be protected from stress!

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Here Be... Cookies, To Turn A Phrase, and Ivanka Trump

Periodic reminder:
European law requires us (the authors of this blog) to remind European visitors that Google, host of Blogger, places cookies on the devices of all visitors. We (the authors) have no control over the cookies that Blogger/Google places on your devices, and if you visit this blog, we assume that you consent to the cookies.

Talking of European cookie law:
The law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP recently wrote about European proposed e-privacy rules that may be adopted early in 2018.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=27f712c9-a547-4253-8a9e-566518dbfe29&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=

Honestly, I do not believe that the authors of this blog have any access at all to visitors' data, email addresses or anything else (unless you leave a comment, and mostly, you don't).  There does seem to be a visitor counter at the very bottom of the blog page, and according to the above referenced law firm, visitor counters do not require the consent of visitors.

On "60 Ways..." not to leave your lover but "To Turn A Phrase":
In an interesting article about how he advises clients on creating unique and memorable trademarks, Nexsen Pruett refers to "Figures of Speech or 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase" by Arthur Quinn.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a95e16c3-9634-4602-929a-982ac0f267a8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=

Read Nexsen Pruett's blog if you are thinking of getting a trademark (mine is Space Snark and I did not take this expert's advice).  I'm thinking of buying the late Arthur Quinn's paperback.  However, it is short and expensive, and Google Books helpfully reveals quite a lot of the content (very interesting content on use of misspelled words),  Pages 12-24 consecutively and in full, for instance.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Figures_of_Speech.html?id=jjfAJwB6FoUC

And a search of "And" reveals "To And or Not To And" pages 1 to 9 inclusive. It's a mystery to me how Authors Guild lost that lawsuit, and this is totally lawful.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XFLFiE2kn1QC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Last but not least,
I bought an Ivanka Trump dress last week. It was marked down at T J Maxx, and was well made, flattering, and a modest length. I cannot say the same about the length, of a Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm's article about artists piling on Ivanka Trump because their artwork shows on her home's walls in the background of her selfies.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a40e7d1-2a79-4216-b364-505f79e9d2fa&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-11&utm_term=

If the late Prince and his music publishers could not prevail in the Dancing Baby case for his music playing in the background of a home movie, it's even more likely to be fair use for whatever one has permanently displayed on ones walls to be in the background of personal photographs.

It might be a different matter if the lady were taking high quality photos of just the artwork and selling prints, but she is not doing that.

The legal blogger (Ms Pillsbury) makes excellent points about Fair Use as regards background images in non-commercial social media type posts on Instagram.

Authors might extrapolate something to consider before taking photographs to promote their own books if there are prominent and clear images of more famous authors' works in the background. It's not cool to use--or tag-- another author's name (without permission) to promote oneself.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Cookies!!!! (Google May Be The Biggest Cookie Monster Of All)

Dear Friends and Most Welcome Visitors....

European Union laws requires us (the authors of the alien romances blog hosted on Blogger) to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on our blog. In many cases, these laws also require us to obtain your consent. 

By visiting this blog, we (the aliendjinnromances authors) assume that you consent. If you don't consent, please leave a polite comment advising us of which cookies were added, so we may address the issue.

If you feel so inclined, please let us know in a comment what cookies our blog has dumped on your device, too. (We would love the traffic!!)

As a courtesy to us, Google has added a notice on our blog to explain Google's use of certain Blogger and Google cookies, including use of Google Analytics and AdSense cookies. 

https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/6253244?p=eu_cookies_notice&hl=en&rd=1

We think that Google also adds YouTube and Googlevideo cookies.... judging by the cookies I see when I open "Preferences" in my browser.

Google tells us that we are responsible for confirming this notice actually works for our blog, and that it displays. 

If you have seen this notice, or a similar notice posted by Google on our blog, please let us know (by leaving a comment).

PS....   I am unable to leave any comments!  Is anyone else having this problem? It seems that the only people who may comment HAVE to have a Google + account (how tyrannical is that?!!)  Even then, one cannot comment.

Rowena