Like many in the industry, I awaited the Supreme Court�s ruling in the MGM v. Grokster case with great interest, but also some degree of ambivalence about the right outcome. Anyone who has worked for a software company knows the importance of protection of copyright, and the stifling effect that piracy can have on the incentives for innovation. By the same token, this case sets (and potentially breaks) some significant precedents. Now, more than ever, the providers of devices and services bear responsibilities for the actions of their users and customers. The spectre of mutli-year and multi-million dollar legal suits arising against companies for the actions of a few of their customers could itself stifle innovation, especially in such still-evolving areas as P2P computing and digital media.

For those of you not familiar with the case, entertainment giants such as MGM, Disney, and Time Warner asked the Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings that held that peer�to-peer file sharing companies such as Grokster and StreamCast Networks aren't responsible when their users illegally download music and other copyrighted content. The lower court ruling was based substantially on the 1984 Betamax Case, which provided a safe-harbor for companies who distribute devices (such as a VCR), that might be used by some individuals to infringe copyrights, if the device had substantial non-infringing uses as well.

The importance of the case was evidenced by the volume of friend of the court briefs filed. Briefs in favor of the studies were filed by from Americans for Tax Reform, Major League Baseball, and the Justice Department, to the Christian Coalition, the Eagles, and Cheryl Crow. Briefs in favor of Grokster were filed by the ACLU, Chuck D, Kazaa, the Consumer Electronics Association, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association.

The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously: Internet file-sharing services may be sued if they encourage customers to swap songs and movies illegally. In the text of his opinion, Justice Souter established that lower courts could find file-sharing services responsible by examining factors such as whether the companies marketed the product to deliberately highlight its use for infringing purposes or whether they took easily available steps to reduce infringing uses. In essence, the safe harbor of �substantial non-infringing uses� appears to still be there, but companies can find themselves ailing out of that harbor if through �purposeful, culpable expression and conduct� they encourage the use of their products or services for illegal purposes.

What does this mean for Plaxo? On surface, probably not much. The content that people share using Plaxo is their own contact information. However, like any service with over 5 million users, there are no doubt at least a few people who are busily thinking of ways to leverage the service for less than legitimate ends. Our responsibilities from a legal standpoint seem to be consistent with our company values: create a service that provides a wide variety of legitimate uses, market and educate to our users about the proper uses (e.g. Plaxo Etiquette), and take reasonable steps to prevent abuse.

As for the implications to the industry as a whole...I�m sure that we�ll be hearing a lot more from the various sides on the impact this will have. Depending on who you believe, this ruling will either cause the premature death of untold numbers of innovative, products and services or �power[s] the digital future�lay[ing] the groundwork for the dawn of a new day � an opportunity that will bring the entertainment and technology communities even closer together.� The truth probably lies somewhere in-between. Nine justices can�t all be wrong, can they?

A few weeks back, I wrote the below blog entry, which ended up morphing in an article which ran today on CNET. Thought it would be interesting to still post the original version, both because I�m intrigued by the subject, and the blog version is more personal to me.

Ties That Bind

Plaxo is often discussed in conjunction with the many "social networking" sites. As such, I thought I�d touch on one of the more frequently discussed topics in social networking�the value of strong ties between individuals vs. the value of weak ties.

But first�a story.

A few years back, a friend of mine came home from the hospital with his wife and their first baby. They were startled to be met at the door of their house by his mother-in-law who explained her surprise visit by exclaiming, "I couldn�t let my daughter spend the night at home all alone with a baby and a stranger."

A stranger? Apparently, there are strong ties and then there are strong ties. I guess by the standard of a mother�s tie to her child, even spousal ties are suspiciously weak.

In the social networking space, of course, far more of the focus is on the value of less ambiguously weak ties�the connection between two acquaintances, for example, or the connection between an individual and the friend of a friend (FOAF). There is a great deal of sociological research (e.g. Mark Granovetter�s groundbreaking paper) that shows that weak ties are incredibly important, especially in areas such as finding a job or meeting a prospective partner�in fact, Plaxo receives many job candidates thru our postings on a popular social networking site. Indeed, many have argued that since the people to whom you have strong ties travel in the same circles that you do and have access to the same things that you do, weak ties offer more value than strong ties, because they are better able to expand your opportunities.

Most social networking sites are focused precisely at increasing the number of weak ties that an individual has. As a member of one of these sites, I am linked to over 859,400 individuals � 23 are people I know; the other 859,377 are linked to me via 1 to 4 degrees of separation (the 4th degree being the largest group with 755, 200 links).

As someone who met his wife through weak ties (my roommate was dating her roommate and they met through a mutual friend), I�d never knock the power of weak ties. But, I wonder, "Will the technology that makes creating weak ties easy also serve to make them less valuable? Will people soon become skeptical of calls from people who claim to have been referred by a close colleague?"

Arguably, the technology of the past 10 years has made it easier for people to connect to information and businesses, but harder to stay connected to each other. Most of us have at least 8 contact points (home, work and mobile phones, mailing addresses, e-mail, IM screen name, VoIP handles, etc.) that are frequently changing and our friends and colleagues are in the same situation. I believe many have found that people they may once have considered strong ties, have slipped to weak ties over time. And not because they grew apart, but simply because it takes a concentrated effort to maintain a strong tie.

Plaxo is often discussed in conjunction with social networking sites. However I feel we are complementary to these services rather than competing. For better or for worse, Plaxo has focused its efforts on helping subscribers with their existing ties, with people to whom they are already directly connected. For example, I have "only" 325 Plaxo connections to other Plaxo members, but they are almost all people that I knew personally before joining Plaxo. If Plaxo does its job correctly, I won�t accidentally lose contact with these people simply as a result of a home or work move, a changed phone number, or a new e-mail address. In other words, Plaxo helps to strengthen ties that exist--be they weak or strong-- rather than helping to increase the network of weak ties.

There is value in both types of ties, and both types of services. At the end of the day, however, I suspect that the true strength of a relationship in the future will be determined, as it always has been, by the content of the relationship and the effort invested by both parties, rather than the mechanism that established the relationship in the first place.

Ben Golub
CEO
Plaxo, Inc.

From the desk of the Privacy Officer...

Much has been written and discussed regarding Plaxo Update Request messages, the messages that Plaxo members chose to send to selected contacts within their address book. Update Request messages serve to update the recipient with a member's latest contact information and to optionally request the recipient update their information with the member. Update Request messages continue to be one of the most fundamental methods Plaxo members use to stay in touch with contacts who are not Plaxo members. But Update Request messages have not been without their own controversy, often as a result of improper usage by Plaxo members.

Whenever a new technology is introduced, there always seems to be a "breaking-in" period during which people start to establish what is proper usage behavior. After all, remember when it was common to hear a handful of cell phones going off during a movie or play? Or in responding to e-mail, some people ALWAYS SEEMED TO USE CAPS?

Thankfully over time, it became apparent to most people what is the conventional norm and a proper etiquette has been established. Sure you still hear the occasional cell phone ringing in the theater, and my Uncle Ted still hasn't figured out how to turn off his CAPS LOCK key, but fortunately these occurrences are more the exception than the rule. It's clear that as users adopt a proper etiquette, the technology becomes more useful and accepted by everyone.

And I believe these same rules apply to Plaxo. So to help people understand the proper netiquette when using Plaxo, we've published our own set of Plaxo manners. Plaxo Etiquette includes 5 common sense tips that should help Plaxo members to be better net-citizens and make Plaxo more useful and beneficial to everyone.

• Keep it to the facts.


• Know who you want to know.


• Use the personal touch.


• Tell them who you are.


• Respect others� privacy.

The complete Plaxo Etiquette is published under the Security and Privacy section of our web site. I invite everyone to take a read, let us know your feedback, and as Brad Hamilton once told Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Richmond High, "Learn it. Know it. Live it".

Till next time.

Stacy Martin
Plaxo Privacy Officer
privacy @t plaxo.com