The No Responsibility Society: Suing Because Your Daughter Is Texting So Much She Didn't Notice The Open Manhole

from the houston,-we-have-a-problem dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in various versions of this story -- and I have to admit, it sounds so ridiculous that it reads like an urban legend. I was hesitant to even write about it at first, but with so many mainstream media sources covering it, perhaps it really did happen. Basically, a girl who claims she was so focused on text messaging while working fell into an open manhole in Staten Island. Now, that should be embarrassing enough, but the really crazy part is the claim that the girl's parents are planning to sue the city for not adequately protecting their daughter from herself. At least they're not suing the mobile carrier or mobile device maker as well...

Filed Under: responsibility, suing, texting, walking

Should Internet Censors Be Responsible For Breaking Stuff?

from the important-questions dept

In the wake of the UK Internet Watch Foundation's block of a particular Wikipedia page for what it claimed was illegal child pornography, and the group's subsequent reversal of that decision, the EFF is now asking will IWF be held responsible for the unintended consequences of its unregulated ability to ban websites? In this case, the action lead to a chain of events that blocked a significant number of UK Wikipedia users from being able to edit any page on the site. The EFF points out that the IWF's reversal on the ban was for all the wrong reasons: rather than it being because the image was old or widespread -- the group never should have put up the ban in the first place, recognizing that Wikipedia's open group review process is a lot more effective than IWF's arbitrary and secretive process.

Filed Under: censorship, responsibility, unintended consequences

Is It McDonald's Responsibility To Stop Nude Photos From Getting Online?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

I originally saw this story Sunday night, about a guy suing McDonald's over naked photos of his wife showing up online after he accidentally left his phone (which contained the photos) at a McDonald's. I didn't write anything up because, while the story is attention-getting, there didn't seem to be much to say about it. However, we've had more people submitting it than just about any story I've ever seen -- so apparently folks think it's worth discussing here.

One point raised by numerous submitters is the question of liability. The guy is suing McDonald's specifically, along with various employees from the franchise where he left his phone. However, it's unclear why this should be McDonald's responsibility specifically. If the guy had left the phone on a bus, would it have been the bus company's liability? It seems like yet another example of something I've referred to as a Steve Dallas lawsuit, named after the character in the old comic strip Bloom County, who once suggested that a paparazzi photographer who was beat up by a celebrity (I think it was Sean Penn in the comic strip) sue camera-maker Nikon, since that was the company with the most money -- despite it not really being involved. The same thing seems to be at work here. The guy is suing McDonald's for $3 million.

Yes, I'm quite sure it sucks to have discovered his wife's naked photos online, and I'm sure it was embarrassing. But, isn't part of the problem the guy's own fault for (a) not protecting the content on his phone and (b) forgetting the phone in the first place? Shouldn't he take some responsibility for his actions, rather than suing a company that basically had nothing to do with the issue (other than being the place where the guy carelessly lost his phone) for $3 million?

Filed Under: liability, nude photos, responsibility, steve dallas
Companies: mcdonalds

Politicians Still Trying To Outlaw Being A Jerk

from the it's-not-going-to-work dept

Reader eoinmonty writes in to let us know that Irish politicians are pressuring mobile phone companies to stop mobile phone bullying, and saying that if the companies can't do so, they'll be forced to put in place laws that require them to stop bullying. The whole thing is rather ridiculous, and, as one phone company rep accurately pointed out: "It is unrealistic and unfair to expect mobile phone operators to solve what is a broader societal problem." Indeed. It seems as if politicians think that somehow the mobile operators can just snap their fingers and stop undesired activity. They can't. And, to let them in on a little secret: even passing a law won't do much to help. People are going to be bullies -- and passing a law or asking the mobile phone companies to hold back the tide won't do much to stop them.

Filed Under: bullying, cyberbullying, ireland, liability, responsibility

NBC Universal Now Says It Should Be Apple's Responsibility To Stop Piracy

from the oh-please dept

Sometimes you wonder how the folks at NBC Universal get anything accomplished, when they seem totally unable to accept responsibility for the market challenges they face, and demand that everyone else fix NBC Universal's business model problems. Remember, NBC Universal has been the main supporter of the idea that ISPs should be responsible for stopping any unauthorized transfer of content. But why take chances on having just one outside party prop up your business model?

Now, NBC Universal's "chief digital officer," George Kliavkoff, is saying that it should be Apple's responsibility to stop unauthorized usage by building special antipiracy filters into iTunes. Yes, iTunes -- the service that plenty of people use in order to legally purchase content. However, since iTunes is also the connection that most people use to manage their iPod content, NBC Universal thinks Apple should somehow block the ability to get non-authorized material onto the iPod. How would they do that? How would they know that a song is authorized vs. legally ripped? Don't bother asking tough questions like that. After all, if NBC Universal actually knew how to answer them, it wouldn't be telling everyone else that they're required to fix NBC Universal's broken business model. And, of course, it apparently hasn't occurred to NBC Universal execs that if Apple actually agreed to this (which seems extremely unlikely), it would just push people to jump to other solutions to manage their music, such as Songbird.

Kliavkoff then goes on to say: "It's really difficult for us to work with any distribution partner who says 'Here's the wholesale price and the retail price,' especially when the price doesn't reflect the full value of the product." Note the careful choice of words here. Remember, we were just discussing how the entertainment industry is trying to appropriate all value that is associated with content (even if that value is because of some other vehicle) back to the content owner. Kliavkoff's statement also shows a confusion over the difference between price and value -- and because of that he seems to be assigning all the value to the content and almost none to the service and technology Apple provides (sound familiar?). Coming from a "chief digital officer" that seems troublesome for the company's digital strategies. Then again, perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise. Companies that have a "chief digital officer" are already in trouble because they're sectioning off "digital" as if it's some separate function, rather than a key component that will impact all aspects of the business.

Filed Under: blame, business models, economics, itunes, piracy, responsibility
Companies: apple, nbc universal