Music predates agriculture. That's something I suppose I always knew, but had never thought about in such clear terms until Bryan Kim illustrated it in a talk at SFMusicTech with a photo of a 35,000-year-old bone flute. This places music before farming and written language on the timeline of humanity, right alongside the earliest known cave paintings in Europe, at the very least. By comparison, recorded music has only been around for a little over a century.

Viewed in that light, the idea that recordings are the central, defining aspect of music or the music industry is just plain ridiculous. Between that ancient flute and today, there have been plenty of different successful models for funding music. Kim points out that the one common thread throughout, which continues today, is that music's primary function is more community-building than anything else:

For most of human history, music was a public and participatory experience, inextricably linked to a plural of people synched in a real-time experience. As a binding agent of dancing and singing bodies, music could literally manifest community. And lest you think our modern society has evolved beyond the tribal utility of music, just think of religious services, major sporting events, weddings, nightclubs, road trips… when was the last time you attended one of these without some sort of collective music ritual?

...

In many ways, music is the original social network. This makes musicians founders of community. In a networked world, that’s powerful.

I found all this especially fascinating because of the conclusion Kim reached, and the model he's dubbed "crowd patronage" for supporting music going forward, combining the traditions of busking and of wealthy patrons that have been dominant in virtually all periods of history and, likely, pre-history. The idea is that you need an "ecosystem of fans" and then they will support you in exchange for "relationship access". It is, essentially, the same as what we've been calling CwF+RtB here at Techdirt. Using Kickstarter as an example, Kim elaborates:

Just like in the era of patronage, pledgers are usually not buying a commodified product. The most successful music Kickstarter projects sell you one or more of three “values”: 1) access to artist (as discussed above), 2) exclusivity and 3) recognition/participation (especially for artist’s creation).

So we’re going to see more artists open up the creation process to their fanbase. Everything from crediting fans in the liner notes, to tracking fans' recorded sounds as real stems, to skyping and polling fans during studio sessions.

As a musician, it’s already technically possible to do this. In the next few years, we’re going to find it become more culturally acceptable on both the artist and fan side. More importantly, artists are going to start finding which sorts of packages their fans actually buy, etching out the contours of a new crowd patronage “model”.

It's great to see more people reaching this conclusion, and especially interesting to see it approached from a broader historical perspective: crowd patronage or CwF+RtB is only a new or radical concept when viewed through the narrow lens of recorded music's few decades of dominance. In the bigger picture, it's actually a return to music's roots as a community tool and a tribal experience. Recorded music is still a fantastic thing that has enriched our lives and our culture in its own way—but the notion that music cannot thrive without the commoditization of discrete units doesn't withstand an ounce of scrutiny. The next time someone suggests such a thing, remind them that humans were carving flutes out of bone 20,000 years before the last ice age ended, when glaciers were still creeping towards the Great Lakes and consuming all of the British Isles, and the last few Neanderthals were still roaming around Europe. It sure makes CDs and records seem a tad less significant.

You may recall that nearly a decade ago, people began to question why SoundExchange, the RIAA spinoff created to collect satellite and internet broadcasting royalties, was allowed to keep any of the money for artists it couldn't find. That resulted in some controversy, when people realized that it was sitting on over $100 million and suggesting it might keep the money for a big list of artists it couldn't find. After much uproar, SoundExchange backed down, and said that it wasn't, in fact, keeping the money. And, to its credit, in the past few years, SoundExchange has been very good about working a variety of angles to get artists signed up to get the money they're owed from such webcasting royalties (such as those Pandora was just talking about).

However, some artists still aren't signing up -- and SoundExchange is apparently giving people something of an ultimatum, in which they hint at the fact that, you know, if they wanted to they absolutely could just keep the money.

Register by Oct. 15 as you may risk losing any royalties collected three (3) or more years ago by SoundExchange.

SoundExchange is authorized by law to release older unclaimed royalties to offset our costs and distribute proportionally to those we already pay. We have repeatedly held off on doing this, but we need your help to spread the word and get recording artists and record labels to register.

As some have noticed there are some pretty big names on the "unclaimed" list. Swedish House Mafia, N.W.A., Billy Bob Thornton, Sublime, Fleetwood Mac, Rebecca Black, Louis CK, Grandmaster Flash, The Byrds, Charlie Sheen, Brother Ali... and a bunch of others. I'm pretty surprised that Rebecca Black and Louis CK haven't figured this out yet... but there's one name on the list that is stunning: Gene Simmons. Simmons is famous for being focused almost entirely on getting money, even to the point of saying that artists should sue their fans. You'd think that somewhere along the line he'd notice that he should register with SoundExchange to get what's owed to him.

For what it's worth -- while there were some legitimate concerns that SoundExchange was doing little to "find" these artists, I no longer believe that's the case. Having watched their efforts over the past few years, they really have done quite a lot to try to get artists to register. Of course, this really just highlights one of the problems of setting up a system like SoundExchange in the first place. Creating unnecessary middlemen may seem like a useful solution, but it often seems to just prevent more direct support of artists. Still, if you are a recording artist of any kind, it's worth getting registered to avoid having SoundExchange keep the money it has for you for itself.

3D printing is on the verge of really going mainstream, in part because of improvements in the technology, but in large part because the key patents that have limited that advancement are getting close to expiring. Of course, as it takes off, though, expect a ton of people to try to "tax" the success with new patents of their own. And, of course, it comes as little surprise that Intellectual Ventures will be a player in that space. Though its first attempt might backfire... Technology Review has a story about Intellectual Ventures getting a new patent on DRM for 3D printing. You can see the patent (8,286,236) yourself. It's a pretty broad patent that seems to cover a broad array of "authorization" measures for manufacturing based on a data file.

We've talked in the past about how patents too often get granted for taking something known or common and basically saying "on the internet" on it. Perhaps the next wave of patents will be the same kinda thing, but "... with 3D printing." Of course, patenting DRM might actually have a good, if unintended, result: perhaps it will scare people and companies away from making the mistake of trying to DRM up 3D printing files, and leave the system much more open. Though, given the historical comparisons, that seems unlikely...

Water fountains have improved somewhat over the years, but soda machines are really getting quite advanced. Not just limited to refrigerating sugary beverages, these vending machines are going to start tracking consumer behavior and offering some entertainment along with a frosty refreshment. Here are just a few examples of high-tech vending machines trying to connect with customers to sell more soft drinks.

• A Coca-Cola vending machine in South Korea will dispense free Cokes if you dance for your drink. The machine uses a Kinect controller and promises not to make fun of your Gangnam-style moves. [url]
• Intel has demoed a Coke machine that uses one of its Core i7 processors so that it can handle a giant touchscreen interface with interactive videos. Hopefully, the blue screen of death won't inconvenience too many thirsty patrons. [url]
• Vending machines are going to start telling you how many calories are in the beverages they sell. Pretty soon, these machines will also start guessing your BMI and suggesting diet sodas... [url]
• The Coca-Cola Hug Machine was dispensing free drinks to people who hugged the vending machine. Getting to first base with the soda machine didn't offer any additional benefits. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Can we just admit that laws requiring privacy policies are a dumb idea? They make almost no sense. No one reads them. And the laws requiring them don't require that you actually keep info private... just that you have one of those privacy policies that no one reads and no one cares about. The only ways you get in trouble are (a) if you don't have a privacy policy or (b) if you don't abide by your privacy policy. Thus, the basic incentive is to write a privacy policy that is opaque and which no one will read -- and which says "you have no privacy at all, we can do whatever we want with your data" so you could never violate it.

But grandstanding politicians see this as an easy and cheap way to be seen as "protecting the little guy" even though it does nothing along those lines. It appears that California Attorney General Kamala Harris may be jumping into the fray -- and bizarrely using Twitter to passive aggressively threaten United Airlines. In a tweet, she asks the company where its privacy policy is on its mobile app:

Fabulous app, @united Airlines, but where is your app’s #privacy policy? 1.usa.gov/SWGCTm

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 12, 2012

That link is to California's law that requires privacy policies. But, once again, we're at a loss to see what this does for actual privacy, if anything. If the app doesn't have a privacy policy, does that change how United Airlines uses people's data? Doubtful. Is anyone who uses the app actually reading the privacy policy? Doubtful. If they do, will they understand it? Unlikely. So, what does this kind of thing do? You'd think that there were, perhaps, more pressing things for the state to focus on rather than harassing companies on Twitter.

Reuters is reporting that 4 out of 5 FTC Commissioners have decided they have enough evidence to go after Google for violating antitrust laws to "hurt its rivals." Details remain sparse, but it will be interesting to see any specifics once they're out, and how they show any kind of consumer harm. From what's been said in the past, it really feels like this is yet another case of going after a company because it's big, rather than because of any demonstrable problem. Tim Wu, who's been advising the FTC, has argued in the past that all you have to be is big to be a monopolist, but I don't see how that makes any sense. As we've discussed before, no one has provided a reasonable suggestion as to why Google should need to promote other search engines. Especially in this day and age when different services are eating away at Google from a variety of angles (Apple and Facebook have been quite successful), and considering that if the search results are bad, it's easy to switch to another search engine (I regularly use DuckDuckGo myself these days), I'm really curious as to what the harm here is. It sounds like we may find out soon.

If you haven't heard, comedian Mike Birbiglia and This American Life's Ira Glass made a movie, called Sleepwalk With Me, based on Birbiglia's act/one man show/book (all of which are hilarious). They did it as a small indie production and have been going crazy coming up with cool ways to connect with fans and get them to support the movie -- such as by doing a ridiculous number of live Q&As, creating cool videos, having a "war" with Joss Whedon, and much much more. Their latest move is particularly cool. The video has now come up on various Video On Demand (VOD) platforms, and they've been encouraging people to hold viewing parties at home tonight... and to make it more fun, they're going to try to Skype or Google Chat into as many of them as possible: I'm curious as to just how many they'll be able to do -- and how long they'll talk to anyone (and how well they'll go), but I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Either way, it's yet another cool way of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy (CwF+RtB) that's been enabled by the digital age.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar has introduced a new bill, the "Cloud Computing Act of 2012" (S.3569), that purports to "improve the enforcement of criminal and civil law with respect to cloud computing." Given its introduction so close to the election, it's doubtful this bill will go anywhere. Still, it provides an excellent case study of how even well-meaning legislators can botch Internet regulation.

What the Bill Does

From its 1980s origins as a law restricting hacking into government computers, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has morphed into a general-purpose federal law against trespassing on anyone else's computers. With that breadth, the CFAA extends to a wide variety of activities, ranging from data scraping (see, e.g., EF Cultural Travel v. Explorica) to fake profiles (see, e.g., the Lori Drew prosecution related to Megan Meier's death) to ex-employees walking out the door with competitively sensitive information (see, e.g., US v. Nosal and WEC v. Miller).

The proposed bill's main substantive provisions attempt to give "cloud computing services" extra protections under the CFAA. First, the bill says that each unauthorized access of a cloud computing account counts as a separate CFAA offense. Second, the bill specifies a formula for computing losses in CFAA violations involving cloud computing services, setting a minimum floor of $500 loss per affected cloud computing account.

Problems with the Bill 

The CFAA is Already a Mess.  Good luck trying to read the CFAA's text. Constant amendments over the years have created spaghetti code. This bill adds only slightly to the CFAA's overall lack-of-tidiness, but every incremental amendment makes the CFAA more unwieldy.

The Definition of "Cloud Computing Service" is Incoherent. The bill seeks to protect cloud computing services, but what are those? Check out the bill's definition:

the term "cloud computing service" means a service that enables convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (including networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction by the provider of the service.

What??? This sounds more like a vendor's sales pitch than a basis for criminal prosecution. We can reinforce the definition's weakness by trying to determine what isn't a cloud computing service. Every user-generated content website seems to qualify; but so should every online bank. In fact, this definition of cloud computing service probably becomes co-extensive with the Internet generally.

To be fair, the failed definition isn't totally the drafter's fault. I don't think it's possible to define "cloud computing service" precisely. Tip to legislators: if you can't clearly define your subject matter of your legislation, you're probably doing something wrong.

What's the Problem That Needs to Be Solved? I can't figure out how the proposed amendments address any problem we're seeing in the field. It's possible I've missed some relevant case, but I can't think of a single case I've seen where the CFAA underprotected a cloud computing service or this legislation would have changed the outcome. Seeking some clarity, I submitted a press inquiry to Sen. Klobuchar's office last week and got no response. So I have no idea what problem this bill purports to solve.

Implications

This bill exemplifies several ongoing problems with efforts to legislate the Internet:

1) Legislative grandstanding. It's flashy for legislators to tell their constituents that they are fighting hard to protect emerging technologies like "cloud computing." But legislators rarely understand cutting-edge technologies, and usually rapidly evolving technologies are poor candidates for legislative intervention. So legislators' efforts to push buzzword-laden legislation are often more for show than substance.

2) Regulatory exceptionalism. As I explain here, legislators keep creating new "exceptionalist" rules for subsets of the Internet ecosystem--online dating sites, social networks, cloud computing services, etc. We saw how well that worked in California's effort to ban employers from asking employees for social media login credentials. California so utterly failed at defining "social media" that it simply covered the entire Internet...and all non-networked electronic data too! Yet, legislators seemingly haven't learned from their colleagues' repeated failed efforts to precisely define the contours of some Internet subcommunity. The proposed CFAA amendment, and its gibberish definition of "cloud computing service," exemplifies this.

3) Code proliferation. For every problem, real or perceived, legislators think they can fix the problem with more regulatory code. But the manufacturing of new legal code exacts a toll of its own. This bill increases the CFAA's complexity with minimal or zero commensurate benefit. If Sen. Klobuchar or anyone else really wants to "fix" the CFAA, a good start would be to reduce the law's length, organize it better, and reduce its implications for users' ordinary Internet activity.

We've written about SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) many times in the past -- and they're frequently about people using the legal system to try to silence someone who wrote something that portrays them in a way they don't like. Thankfully, California and a few other states have decent anti-SLAPP laws that allow such lawsuits to be tossed out fairly quickly. But those who file SLAPP lawsuits still quite frequently have a difficult time coming to grips with the fact that people can report factually on stuff that still makes them look bad. It appears we have one such case happening now (sent in by Tom), which may be leading up to the possibility of a rare double-SLAPP, in which someone potentially files a SLAPP lawsuit against someone who reported on them losing another SLAPP lawsuit. How meta would that be?

Let's take a step back. In May of this year, Steve Pond at TheWrap.com published an article about accusations being made against a San Francisco socialite Elisabeth Thieriot by film producer Raul Julia-Levy. The details aren't particularly important, other than this: there was a documentary being worked on about the Mayan calendar. There was a falling out between Thieriot, who helped finance the film, and the film's producer, Raul Julia-Levy. As the original article makes clear, there have been accusations made that Julia-Levy's credibility isn't that strong -- but the article did report accurately that he has made certain accusations against Thieriot, that she filmed without a valid permit and that she fled the country with footage, despite being asked to stay.

Thieriot then sued TheWrap for defamation, but last month, an LA court dismissed the claim on anti-SLAPP grounds, noting that Thieriot failed to show that the statements made in the original article were false, or that the statements were made maliciously. The failure to prove that the statements were false is pretty much the end of any defamation claim, and the anti-SLAPP process makes it quick and easy... and opens up Thieriot to the possibility of having to pay TheWrap's legal fees.

Plaintiff fails to produce evidence showing that the statements in the article were false. The article reports on allegations made by levy against plaintiff.... The article at multiple points indicates that the accusations came from Levy and the article at no point states that plaintiff actually committed the alleged acts. The article does not state that plaintiff has been charged with any crime. Indeed, the article at several points indicates that Levy had been previously accused of dishonesty.

Basically, standard-issue dismissal thanks to California's lovely anti-SLAPP law. So that's SLAPP, the first.

Next up, we have a blog called SFCitizen.com who, it should be admitted, has a bit of a history of mocking Thieriot. Not surprisingly, the blog posted about the dismissed SLAPP suit, with a post entitled Pwned! Area Socialite Elisabeth Thieriot Loses Her “SLAPP” Lawsuit against Journalists in L.A. – Mayan Prophecy. It basically repeats the basic points of the story, though clearly in a mocking fashion. Not much to it.

And then... Thieriot apparently decides that, despite having already lost a SLAPP suit, that she's going to threaten this other blogger for writing about the fact that she lost her SLAPP suit. The argument shown in the letter that Thieriot's lawyers allegedly sent, which was posted to the SFCitizen site, is that because the blogger only stated (the factual info) that she had lost her SLAPP suit... without also including information on the reliability of the source for the original TheWrap column, this somehow was a form of defamation. While the blog's title suggests it's been "sued," it appears that it's just been nastygrammed at this point. But that letter certainly appears to be threatening a nearly identical kind of SLAPP suit, in which they claim defamation over things that are true as stated, but which Thieriot feels doesn't properly give deference to her side of the story. We all saw how it turned out the first time around. Could it be time for a double-SLAPP on someone filing a SLAPP over someone reporting on how they lost their original SLAPP? Exciting times...

Oh, and we can't let this one go without pointing out that I'd thought most lawyers by this point had learned that lines like "you are not authorized to disclose the contents of this letter publicly or to disseminate it..." only serve to make whoever sent the letter look ridiculous for claiming things that simply have no basis in anything. Apparently, however, there are still some out there.

Last month we noted how striking it was when even random web comics were mocking the ridiculousness of the patent system -- pointing to a comic from SMBC. Well, he's back with yet another, even more direct, mocking of the patent system. Behold, patents in the time of Sir Isaac Newton. Of course, I think he missed out on another joke (and was disappointed it wasn't in the after comment) concerning how the Newton-Leibniz controversy would have played out in a first to file system vs. a first to invent patent system. Then again, perhaps only true patent system geeks would get that one.

Back in June, Glyn wrote about the so-called "Snooper's Charter" in the UK. It was a draft Communications Bill that had some ridiculous surveillance measures, such as data retention by ISPs on all emails. There was an open comment period, and apparently over 19,000 emails were sent in. And, it turns out, the score was over 19,000... to zero. Yes, not a single comment submitted in support of the bill. From the Joint Parliamentary Committee:

... we have not seen a single email supporting the draft Communications Data Bill, or even agreeing that there may be a case for the security services and law enforcement agencies having greater access to communications data than they do at present.

While many of the emails received were generated from organizations opposed to the bill, you'd think that someone out there would be in favor of it. At the very least, hopefully this leads to a pretty big rethinking of the effort.

To hear the MPAA and RIAA tell the story, they represent "the entertainment world." They like to pretend that they represent all of the actual content creators, but more and more people are realizing the truth: they represent the legacy gatekeepers, who have often done more to screw over the actual artists than to help them. So, as we get closer and closer to the silly "six strikes" plan that the MPAA and RIAA worked out with ISPs, it's good to see that some of those they pretend to represent are speaking out against the plan. Actress Rosario Dawson has taken to Twitter to speak out against the plan:

ISPs caving to copyright holders- could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy...! bit.ly/VRNLFa via @demandprogress

— Rosario Dawson (@rosariodawson) October 11, 2012

If you can't read that, it says:

ISPs caving to copyright holders- could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy...!

And then it links to DemandProgress' petition to the ISPs telling them not to support the six strikes plans or subscribers will take their business elsewhere. Of course, for too many customers, "elsewhere" isn't an option, thanks to a lack of a truly competitive market. Either way, as we saw with the SOPA fight, more and more artists -- musicians, actors, writers, etc. -- are making it clear that the RIAA & MPAA don't represent them, and they know part of these crazy plans that are being pushed in their names. Kudos to Dawson for speaking up.

And the election season silliness continues. In keeping with the tradition of campaigning against candidates' gaming habits and strange Obama/YouTube conspiracy theories, there's apparently been some hubbub surrounding the mysterious liking of Mitt Romney. Apparently a fair number of liberal-minded folks have noticed that their Facebook profiles have "liked" Mitt Romney on the social media network against the wishes of the profile owner. When questions began to rise as to how this was possible, one popular theory circulating was that Mitt Romney was Zero-Cool-ing people's Facebook profiles to garner more positive attention. Theoretically someone inside his campaign did this for him.

"Now we'll have to spell your name all 'puter like, p4uL rY4n!"

Image source: CC BY 2.0

Well, in what I'm sure will shock everyone, no, Mitt Romney and his campaign did not rappel into a server farm Mission Impossible style and hack the internet tubes. Instead, the culprit appears to be Facebook's clumsy mobile application and its accomplice Senor Your-Fat-Fingers.

[Facebook] concluded that users are probably liking the Romney page on a mobile device by either accidentally clicking on a Romney ad or a “sponsored story” from the Romney campaign in their news feed. A Facebook spokesman, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the issue is unique to mobile because of the way the app works on small screens, and rejected the idea that the Romney camp was engaging in clickjacking. He added that the company is currently working to clean up its mobile interface.

That, coupled with people who are "liking" Romney's page just so they can see what he's putting out there, even though they may not support him, is admittedly a far less fun explanation than the idea of Romney going all The Net on social media, but I never claimed that the truth was better than fiction. So it's back to your regularly scheduled social media political talk for all of you. Remember: anyone supporting Obama is a Chinese commie spy moron and anyone supporting Romney is almost certainly Hitler.
 

We've been covering the ridiculous patent case involving an iPhone and Android app called Speak for Yourself, which was a tool used by many people who had various issues with being able to speak. We became aware of it, because of a mother whose young daughter Maya relied on the tool to actually communicate, and who feared that the tool would disappear due to the lawsuit. While the lawsuit was ongoing, despite a lack of an injunction, the patent holder was still able to get the tool removed from both the Apple App Store and Google's app store.

Thankfully, the makers of Speak for Yourself have now announced that the case has been settled and the patent holder and licensee who were suing them, Semantic Compaction Systems and Prentke Romich Company, will drop all claims and takedown notices concerning SFY. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement are confidential -- which is common in these kinds of things, but far from necessary. It's likely that SFY paid something here, though there have been questions about the validity of the patent in question (5,920,303) for a keyboard with keys that dynamically change. While this news means that the Nieder family no longer needs to worry, it's unfortunate that this whole thing had to happen in the first place. It was a pointless and wasteful distraction from all of these companies focusing on actually innovating and competing in the marketplace, like they should. As for the Nieders, there doesn't appear to be an update on their blog yet, but perhaps it's because little Maya has a brand new baby brother. Hopefully she enjoys speaking to him with the SFY app, and her parents can rest easy knowing they don't have to worry about their daughter's ability to communicate any longer.

There were plenty of rumors (and leaks) earlier this year about how, even after European protests effectively killed ACTA in the EU, it was clear that some of the worst, most outrageous parts of ACTA had been written into CETA, a similar agreement between Canada and Europe. EU officials claimed they were removing the most controversial provisions -- but now it's been confirmed that the ridiculously misguided criminal sanctions... had magically found their way into CETA. Given the public's response to ACTA, EU Commission officials either think the public is stupid... or just not paying attention.

The current attitude of the EU negotiators on CETA is an alarming repetition of the blatant denial of democracy of the ACTA negotiations. Despite calls from citizens and representatives, CETA remains confidential, both in the EU and in Canada. In this context of non-transparency, Philipp Dupuis, the European Commission negotiator, confirmed at a workshop held on October 10th 2012 that ACTA-like criminal sanctions were still in the CETA draft.

As Jeremie Zimmermann points out in the link above, this whole process of sneaking through protectionist IP policies in supposed "free trade" agreements needs to stop:

“The only hard evidence on which we can base our analysis suggests the worst: once again, the European Commission and the EU Member States governments are trying to impose repressive measures against cultural practices online. Broad criminal sanctions do not belong in a trade agreement. If they appear in the final CETA text, the agreement will lose all legitimacy and will have to be frontally opposed, like ACTA. This trend of sneaking repressive measures through negotiated trade agreements must stop.”

It needs to stop, but people don't realize how entrenched that process is, which is a big part of the problem.

Cloud computing has been presented as the new economic weapon for bringing economic prosperity to Europe, if you believe the new cloud computing strategy from the European Commission. An additional € 957 billion ($1,236 billion) is expected to be earned in the EU by 2020, along with an additional 3.8 million jobs created. These impressive economic forecasts are unfortunately just seen as a positive side effect of something much more important to the bureaucrats: a chance to update the regulation of the internet. Of course, all this might actually do is open up opportunities for other countries and regions to do a better job at it. And it appears that Iceland wants to be poised to step in where Europe is all too likely to fail.

Fixing the regulation of information and online services has been overdue for many, many years in Europe. Developers of both complex and simple cloud services are often being frustrated by current laws, which were enacted many years ago without much (or any) foresight into how information would be used today. For example, the consent of the user to allow a cloud service to handle his or her personal data often does not reflect the technical reality of how the data is handled by a service operating in a cloud. Even if the cloud system is technically secure and privacy measures are taken seriously, obligations or prohibitions in data protection laws inhibit efficient handling of personal data by modern services if the service provider wishes to fully adhere to the law.

Other policy areas that will likely be updated include consumer rights, security, competition and intellectual property. Officials also see this as a chance to address issues such as jurisdiction (applicable law, but also tax issues), liability of intermediaries, standards and interoperability. Techdirt has been reporting on the flaws of current legal systems and the frequently absurd consequences for many years now. Postponing the much needed regulatory update on these issues is like shooting yourself in the foot, over and over again.

The figures presented in the report above may be overstated, but significant investments can be expected as a result of increased legal security in cloud computing. The question is, then: Who will reap the benefit from this? There are many other countries and regions, which have been preparing themselves for the highly interconnected world and now see a chance to profit from new investments in cloud computing and related infrastructure.

For example, Iceland recently stepped forward and presented itself as a strong contender and ideal host for new server farms, which are needed for cloud computing. The Iceland Modern Media Institute (IMMI) presented a rather useful model to analyze a region's potential for becoming a modern information hub based on a few primary indicators. The report was requested by the European Greens party and models a region's suitability for information services based on energy (e.g. sources and natural cooling), connectivity (e.g. international network and security) and jurisdiction (e.g. local legal provisions and legal security).

Iceland was used as a case study to showcase the model, presenting the natural and societal advantages of the island over other countries in an impressive and convincing way. Iceland is ideally located between the US and the EU, has abundant natural cooling sources and, above all, has developed an impressive and progressive portfolio of policies related to the free and open internet.

Not all is lost for Europe, though. The Financial Times has spotted the necessary political frame for the cloud computing strategy to become a serious topic among European officials:

For Ms. Kroes and her colleagues, the cloud is the embodiment of the European Economic Community, eliminating obstacles, stimulating competition and opening up the market to new possibilities.

This 'European Dream' argument for cloud computing could entice some non-tech savvy politicians to take the issue seriously by enabling them to score media attention with their involvement in the new futuristic project which helps rebuild the economy. At least this enables a public, broad and open discussion on all types of internet regulation, where there is plenty of room for expertise and evidence-gathering about the internet to enter the debate.

Recent announcements pave the way for an increased "connectivity" score for the EU in the IMMI model. However, unless the European legislators seize this opportunity in policy making to update its "jurisdiction" score in the model and learn from Iceland's recent policy innovations for the free and open internet, investors may be enticed to build their infrastructure on the island nation, or elsewhere, instead of mainland Europe. The message is simple: Fail to make use of this chance to update the regulation of the internet intelligently, and countries like Iceland will profit most from Europe's cloud computing strategy.