In a nutshell, OpenID lets you take your identity with you, proving to other sites on the web that you own a particular URL. LiveJournal's OpenID support lets you use your LiveJournal identity (just your URL) on other websites which take OpenID, and also lets you take your non-LiveJournal identity and use it here.

DMV says:

Any chance Memestreams would climb onboard?

Yes. I've wanted to see something like this for quite some time. This sounds very similar to the sort of system I've envisioned. However, I need to read the spec in detail and see if this was implemented properly.

Questions:
1. How is the security of this? I need to read more and consider it.

2. FOAF sucks. How does the new site actually get meaningful bio information about me when I create my account using this system? This seems like a more important problem to solve. We've been thinking of making a bunch of extensions to foaf here, but we've got a lot of other work to do.

3. Email verification. Will LiveJournal validate that they have verified the users email address? Can I trust them?

news: OpenID support

That's the thrust of a new law about to take effect in Utah and Michigan that could become a harbinger for the rest of the nation.

Starting Friday, parents in those two states will be able to add their children's e-mail addresses to a "do not contact" registry. Anyone who goes ahead and sends e-mail deemed to be off-color or "harmful to minors" could be imprisoned for up to three years.

Reason number 45 why I'm glad I'm no longer running a mailing list. This is essentially a mini-CDA. It will either die, or it will be amended through the courts, or it will kill internet mailing lists.

Why ribaldry could earn you prison time | Perspectives | CNET News.com

I made a change to the way RSS works for the main page. The immediate effect of this is the next time your RSS client polls the site you'll get a ton of dupes. However, going forward you shouldn't see any more duplicates of posts in the feed.

Here's an hour-long MP3 of today's Grokster press-conference, held jointly by EFF, StreamCast/Morpheus, Grokster, Public Knowledge, Compter and Communications Industry Association, and the Consumer Electronics Association.

This went out about three minutes after I complained of it being unavailable. The EFF issued a short press release complaining that inducement lawsuits will create cost burdens for technology companies. Apparently this is not the bright line rule they were hoping to get.

Boing Boing: Grokster press-conference audio

he bond market is by far the largest securities market in the world,1providing investors with virtually limitless investment options. Many investors are familiar with aspects of the market, but as the number of new products grows, even a bond expert is challenged to keep pace. While we spend a great deal of time discussing economic forecasts and how those forecasts may affect unique sectors of the bond market, we have yet to answer the most basic question: What is a bond?

Really clean and detailed overview.

PIMCO Bonds - Everything You Need to Know About Bonds

The following statement is from Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, on the Grokster decision today: "Today's Court decision in the Grokster case underscores a principle Public Knowledge has long promoted -- punish infringers, not technology. The Court has sent the case back to the trial court so that the trial process can determine whether the defendant companies intentionally encouraged infringement. What this means is, to the extent that providers of P2P technology do not intentionally encourage infringement, they are exempt from secondary liability under our copyright law. The Court also acknowledged, importantly, that there are lawful uses for peer-to-peer technology, including distribution of electronic files 'by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.' The Court is clearly aware that any technology-based rule would have chilled technological innovation.

Public Knowledge seems happy with the result. Don't market your stuff as a criminal tool. Other commentators seem to see an empty victory here for MGM, as "well-advised bad actors rarely leave smoking guns lying about."

Tech Law Advisor: Grokster Decision

k wrote:
Fuck!

[ That is EXACTLY the reaction Ryan had. I agreed then and will now do so again. -k]

I might suggest waiting for the EFF to announce their take on things. I haven't read the decision yet and the devil is in the details, but I don't think the EFF was expecting "total victory." Their pre-decision reading guide nearly predicts a result of this sort:

# No matter what, we've won. From the beginning of this lawsuit, the entertainment industries pushed the lower courts to adopt extreme, outlandish interpretations of copyright law. For example, they argued that the Sony Betamax decision doesn't apply at all to Internet technologies, and that simply knowing that somebody is using your technology to infringe triggers an obligation to redesign it. No matter what the Court may announce on Monday, it will not be adopting this extreme position. So remember what we've already won.

# Next Bout: Congress... A big victory for either side will be characterized as an "extreme" result, potentially strengthening the hand of the opposite side in Congress. An intermediate outcome, on the other hand, may lead Congress to "leave well enough alone."

They may have gotten what they wanted already.

RE: CNN.com - Court: File-sharing services can be liable for music theft - Jun 27, 2005

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that cable companies may keep rival Internet providers from using their lines, a decision that will limit competition and consumers' choices.

Another important SCOTUS case handed down today. I'm obviously disappointed with the result of this case, but that doesn't mean that the reasoning is poor. I'm not sure if I'll bother reading it to find out, but I'd be interested in analysis if anyone on this board has looked at this more carefully.

Cable Companies Don't Need to Share Lines

Links to the actual opinions here.

No. 04-480, MGM Studios v. Grokster, reversed 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Souter. Justice Ginsburg concurred, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy; and Justice Breyer concurred, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor.

SCOTUSblog: Today's Opinions

Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

WaPo says the EFF lost. It will be interesting to see what the EFF says. The reasoning seems reasonable, but consider that this same reasoning might prohibit the distribution of hacking tools, for example.

Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued