Who Is Your Lawyer?

Commentary on Intangible Assets, Fair Use and Parody

Who Is Your Lawyer? header image 1

Welcome to Wellywood?

March 10th, 2010 · Popular, Trademark

Wellington, the capital of New Zealand, plans to pay tribute to Hollywood by putting up a gigantic Wellywood sign in the hills above the city. The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce is less-than-thrilled by the idea, and considers it not so much a tribute as a gratuitous theft of goodwill.  Well-known for litigiousness, the HCOC has been making rumbling noises about litigation to protect its trademark  in the sign.

Perhaps it’s a sign of the times, but this strikes me as less of an intellectual property issue and more a matter of terrible city planning. Why would you want this, and what does it presage? A huge Bollywood  sign in New Delhi, perhaps? Oh, wait, there already is one.

→ No CommentsTags:···

Copyrighting Fashion: One Step Too Far?

March 9th, 2010 · Copyright, Popular

There are many things that are subject to copyright protection — books, articles, film, pictures, music — but fashion design was not high on the founders’ list of concerns when they fashioned the first copyright laws. Nor has the legislature been impressed by past attempts at extending the scope (as opposed to the ever-growing length) of copyright law to include novel categories. The argument to include fashion design is the argument one would expect:  it is an artistic creation in the same way that sculpture is an artistic creation, or modern art. And if you can prohibit the wholesale copying and sale of copies of those goods, why is there no protection for the fashion artist? Why aren’t Chanel’s unique hat designs deserving of the same protection as Picasso’s scribbles on the back of matchbooks?

Pursuing this theory, fashion house Balenciaga recently filed suit against Steve Madden for stealing its shoe designs, which should come as no great shock given that Madden was also recently sued by Alexander McQueen for copying his Faithful boot. Although the lawsuits would seem to be premature given the status of copyright law, the fashion industry is getting a helping hand from New York Senator Charles Schumer, who has been trying to get a fashion copyright bill passed since 2007.  Language has held up previous versions of the bill, but this around time a Harvard law professor — Jeannie Suk — is helping parse the specifications of just how similar an article of clothing has to be to another before being considered a knockoff.

→ No CommentsTags:····

Kindle vs. iPad: Slicing, Dicing and Pricing Literary Rights

March 5th, 2010 · Popular, Technology

Apple recently announced that five of the big six publishers — everybody except Random House — were signing deals to provide content for the iPad. The driving force behind the publishing companies’ exodus from Amazon to Apple is their claim that Amazon’s $9.99 price for new best-sellers is a loss-leader that cuts into their revenues. Whether this is in fact true is the subject of heated debate, particularly since Amazon has been paying the publishers up to$14 per book and eating any loss itself (as part of the upfront costs of convincing people to buy a Kindle).  Macmillan, whose defection from Amazon’s e-book pricing policy caused Amazon to briefly drop all Macmillan titles from its catalog, publicly claimed that Amazon’s pricing “devalued” books, although this hardly makes sense given that millions of people are still willing to queue up to pay $29.99 for new releases (average price of new release: $26).

Publishers seem to be having trouble getting comfortable with the concept of a $9.99 best-seller in the same way the recording industry had trouble swallowing the $0.99 single. Despite the tantalizing possibility that the new technology could drive people to actually read again (which one would think was a plus) publishers appear to be suffering from the same shareholder-induced nearsightedness that has crippled much of the entertainment industry the last two decades. Remember Jack Valenti’s claim to the Senate in 1982? — “I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.” Fast-forward 28 years to the present, where Valenti’s hyperbolic predictions have exploded into meaninglessness.  VCRs drove untold billions into the studios’ pockets, and were followed by the DVD, the DVR, and streaming video, all of which have been or will be enormously profitable for the studios.  The publishers’ pronouncements of dire consquences if Kindle pricing doesn’t adjust upwards is similarly absurd. Market pricing demands that prices go down when competition heats up, not that all the competitors band together to keep prices unnaturally high. As much as the publishers would like it to be so, that’s the sort of anti-competitive behavior the Justice Department frowns upon. And sure enough, despite the hoopla surrounding the publishers’ alliance with Apple, their reprieve appears to have been short-lived; Apple’s initial announcement that e-books on the iPad would range from $12.99 – $14.99 was misunderstood by the publishers and the market as a minimum price, when it apparently is a ceiling. Apple intends to price the hottest best-sellers at — surprise, surprise –$9.99.

Amazon’s response to the defection of the largest publishers to Apple is interesting — Amazon has been meeting with literary agents to discuss buying authors’ e-book rights directly, before publication. Although this may seem Byzantine to those not familiar with the publishing industry, in the world of books the author’s rights are parsed as finely as gold dust. First, there is the right to print the book on paper, bound and packaged with a cover. Second, there is the right to license or sell the book in other countries. Third, there is the right to sell the book on other platforms:  movies, television, video, audio, digital (e.g., e-books), among others.

This new move by Amazon is striking because it is both creative and obvious (in hindsight) at the same time.  Someone in Amazon’s legal department woke up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night with the brilliant realization that there was simply no legal reason e-book rights couldn’t be sold like movie rights — i.e.,  completely independent of print publication rights.  Nobody has done it yet in the United States, and publishers have been loathe to admit that they may not have digital rights to literary works where the contract itself is silent on the issue, but in the world of intellectual property if you can envision a right, then you can usually find a way to sell it.  Amazon may just have just figured out a way to adapt to hostile market conditions, and not only survive, but thrive.

Your move, Apple.

→ No CommentsTags:····

When Is Re-Mixing Copyright Infringement?

March 1st, 2010 · Copyright, Popular

Helene Hegemann is pushing the limits set by writers like James Joyce (the original Mr. Cut-and-Paste) by freely grabbing content from other writers — in some cases, entire scenes — and appropriating it for her own use. This pastiche or collage style of writing has pushed hot buttons in the ongoing debate about what constitutes copyright and plagiarism in literature. Some writers claim that the practice is so commonplace that it is simply part of the creative process — that the living inevitably borrow from the dead — and that it has been going on from time immemorial.  Shakespeare, as any college literature student knows, borrowed heavily from other playwrights. Hamlet, for example, is very like Saxo Grammaticus’ Gesta Danorum; Romeo and Juliet is said to be based on Arthur Brooke’s narrative poem The Tragical History of Romeo and Juliet; and King Lear is  based on the story of King Leir in Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Borrowing plots in this way was common at the time, and after Shakespeare’s death playwrights promptly began borrowing from his works as well.

Several years ago, Jonathan Lethem wrote a brilliant article defending the use of “borrowing” by writers in their pursuit of new creation, arguing that creation itself necessarily calls upon the inchoate melange of what one has read over one’s life as an unconscious source of style, language, allegory, sentence structure, plot, and pacing, and that — in a sense — imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But now writers such as Hegemann and David Shields — whose new novel “Reality Hunger” is built almost entirely of quotations from other writers and thinkers — are pushing the boundaries as to what is appropriate as borrowing, and casting the question of copyright infringement in a different light. When is it plagiarism and not merely exercise of artistic license for transformative purposes?  When does fair use become foul? We’ve seen what has happened to the music industry as it has been pulled kicking and screaming into the future by DJs and artists who use sampling techniques to create their own unique sound, and it was only a matter of time before the issue jumped media to stodgy old print. But where is the line going to be drawn? I suspect that the answer does not lie in the simplistic question “To borrow, or not to borrow,” but rather in litigation reminiscent of Bleak House, which will leave everyone unhappy.

For a more in-depth look at what Hegemann and Shields are attempting to accomplish, see the recent article by Randy Kennedy in the NY Times.

→ No CommentsTags:······

Hey, You Trademarked My Marathon!

February 21st, 2010 · Popular, Trademark

I just got my annual email tickler from the Bank of America Chicago Marathon™ reminding me that registration is now open and that I only have 4 or perhaps 5 months before the 45,000 spots for runners will be closed. While I appreciate advance notice for a marathon that is not going to be run until October 10, 2010, the whole get-it-while-its-hot attitude toward marathon registration is a bit irksome if you are not one of those people who is inclined to plan their life eight months into the future. I am not one of those people, and my past is littered with the detritus of unfulfilled commitments to marathons. While I harbored good intentions, life waylaid me several times on the cusp of my start time with an assortment of obstacles –  root canals, strep throat, injuries, psychic trauma –  so now I squelch any inclination I have to fill up my calendar with races and marathons and adventure runs, knowing that I will inevitably miss a number of them despite my best intentions. Instead, I now prefer to commit to one marathon at a time, and decide what I’m going to run next after dragging my aching feet across the finish line in front of me.

The great thing about running marathons these days is that you really don’t need to book them eight months in advance – if you simply do the electronic equivalent of shaking a stick you will be assaulted with a shocking variety of running options. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that there are now so many marathons being run that I have never heard of many of them.  While I’d always known about the stalwarts — the Boston Marathon™, The San Francisco Marathon™, the Philadelphia Marathon™ – and could guess the names of others by simply sticking the name of a given city in front of the word “marathon,” the world is now populated with newly created gems such as the Michelob Ultra El Paso Marathon™, the Dicks Sporting Goods Pittsburgh Marathon™, and the Under Armour Baltimore Marathon™.

Brand name corporate sponsorship of marathons comes as no surprise, of course, but I find myself preferring races that have no overt affiliation with corporations. If I’m not getting paid to run the race, why should I want to compete in something that has no rhyme, no whimsy, no sense of humor? If I have to go corporate, then I demand something like the Rock ‘n’ Roll San Diego Marathon™, where I can forget about the pain briefly as a Van Halen cover band pounds out Jump at mile 11 and the Gatorade lady slips me a smile with my 3-oz Dixie cup and a packet of Gu.

What I’m really a fan of, though, are the quirky marathons with even quirkier names — the Twisted Ankle Trail Marathon™, the Wild Wild West Marathon™, the Cincinnati Flying Pig Marathon™, the Lost Dutchman Marathon™, Humpy’s Classic™, and the ever-popular (but not very populated) Extraterrestrial Full Moon Midnight Marathon™. Running is such an individual pursuit, involving the slim and the stout, the adolescent and the senescent, the energetic and the just-plain-pooped, that slapping a humorous name on what is a rather undignified pursuit seems appropriate. While the marathon may have its distant origins in myth and legend, few of the folks hobbling along at mile 13 could tell you that the marathon originated to honor a Greek messenger who perished after running to Athens to bring news of a Greek victory in 490 B.C. And even fewer could tell you that the original marathon distance of 24 miles was lengthened to 26.2 miles at the 1908 London Olympics so that the race would end in front of the royal family’s box. They would instead tell you that they are running to raise money for cancer, or for self-empowerment, or because a friend conned them into it, or to get over the death of a pet, or because they’re trying to lose weight, or because it was on their list of 100 things to do before they died. There are as many reasons to run as the throng of 45,000 that will charge around Lake Shore Drive this October can voice, all individual, all important, all ultimately deserving of a name that dispenses with pretense.

We run to honor Pheidippides, we throw in a few extra miles for the Queen, and sometimes we even go an extra mile by accident — as did those fortunate enough to run the 2005 Lakeshore Marathon™, where race planners accidentally added an extra mile to the course between miles 25.2 and 26.2 (officially making it the longest last mile ever run).  Such is the marathon. Arbitrary, strange, devilishly appealing, more related to Monty Python than to Monte Carlo. Such an event is clearly deserving of all the silly names™ a man can devise.

→ 3 CommentsTags:······

What I Talk About When I Talk About Golf

February 15th, 2010 · Popular, Trademark

Lately I have been struck by the realization that virtually every sporting event is trademarked. Not only baseball, which has given us such monstrosities as PETCO Park and Tropicana Field,  but other, lesser events, such as handball (e.g., the City of Arabia United Arab Emirates Handball Federation H.H. U.A.E. President’s Cup). The most offensive of them all, to my way of thinking, is the grossly obvious corporate branding of PGA  tournaments, which have been the subject of ridicule for decades now by golfers and the public alike — who both generally prefer the tradition of “the Crosby” to the mouthful of the “AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am,” and the “Open” to any name involving mention of big corporate sponsorship.  While it is true of course that a long-term relationship with a corporate sponsor is not invariably bad, one of the problems with sponsorship (and the accompanying insistence on use of the corporate logo) is that oftentimes the relationship is not long-term, and the sponsors either eradicate or encroach on a tradition that carries a good deal of independent goodwill. By trying to appropriate goodwill and maximize corporate visibility, corporate sponsors end up making our world one where everything and everyone is branded, and nothing stands out as what it actually is.

One of the great stories on the PGA Tour last year was how Ryan Moore opted out of the sponsorship money-trap, and played the clubs he wanted to play, wore the clothes he wanted to wear, and used the ball he wanted to use. While doubtless it was part publicity stunt (he has since signed with Scratch) – it was frankly refreshing to see someone striding down the fairway with nary a logo to be seen. In a world where golfers occasionally appear as colorful bananas (e.g., Sergio Garcia) arrayed in their Company Man gear, where marketing and adsense invade every arena no matter how small, the idea of a man simply walking down the fairway in a plain grey sweater has a certain appeal.

The funny thing about Ryan Moore’s situation was that it was viewed by virtually everyone as shocking, since Moore was giving up at least a half-million dollar payday – per year – by opting out of corporate sponsorship. The mindset of the world has changed from “Why would I want to wear that silly hat?” to “You’d be dumb to pass up the free money.” These are the kind of deals that professional golfers everywhere are dying to be offered, and Moore passed it up because – according to him – he wanted to focus on winning golf tournaments. His job, after all, is to win tournaments, not to parade for the cameras showing off his Titleist cap. The paradigm shift in the way the world thinks today makes us wonder at his decision, and makes us forget that it was not so long ago that sports heroes were mocked if they turned into corporate shills. Sadly, someone saying it’s not just about the money now seems strange to us. It would be nice if the gentleman’s game could take a lesson from the past and return to its roots.

Hats off, gents. Here’s to playing for the love of the game.

Comments OffTags:····

I Can Say Your Name!

February 15th, 2010 · Trademark

If we pause a moment and reflect on the pervasiveness of trademarks and advertising in the world economy, we can begin to understand how – despite the lessons of history — trademark owners occasionally forget that simply trademarking a word or phrase does not remove it from the common lexicon. People can still use the word or phrase to describe the product without having to resort to tongue-twisting descriptive workarounds (e.g., they can say “he was driving a Ford Mustang” instead of “he was driving a car named after a horse manufactured by one of what used to be referred to as the Big 3”). This is as it should be, of course, since it is often virtually impossible to refer to a particular product for purposes of comparison, criticism, reference or any other reason without using the trademark. How would the news – or even ordinary conversation – function if people were threatened by infringement lawsuits every time they referred to a person, company or product by using its trademark? Trademark law is not intended to turn life into a game of Charades.

Despite the fact that no one wants to live in a world where our language is so circumscribed that we are forbidden from actually calling things by their names, trademark owners keep insisting that they get paid every time their mark is used, even in situations where use of the mark is necessary to describe an event or product. Some of you may recall a number of years ago when the Boston Athletic Association (BAA) tried to prevent Channel 5 from broadcasting the Boston Marathon – which is of course run on public roads – on the grounds that speaking the words “Boston Marathon” aloud on national television would imply that the station had been licensed by the BAA to broadcast the marathon, and create confusion in the mind of the public over whether Channel 5 was in some way associated with the race. In summarily throwing out the case, the 1st Circuit  explained the basic tenets of the “fair use” defense –  if you are describing something (e.g., a race) you can call it by name even if the name happens to be trademarked.

[T]he record provides us with an excellent reason for thinking that Channel 5’s use of the words “Boston Marathon” would not confuse the typical Channel 5 viewer. That reason consists of the fact that those words do more than call attention to Channel 5’s program; they also describe the event that Channel 5 will broadcast. Common sense suggests (consistent with the record here) that a viewer who sees those words flash upon the screen will believe simply that Channel 5 will show, or is showing, or has shown, the marathon, not that Channel 5 has some special approval from the BAA to do so. In technical trademark jargon, the use of words for descriptive purposes is called a “fair use,” and the law usually permits it even if the words themselves also constitute a trademark. See 15 U.S.C. § 1115 (b)(4) (statutory fair use defense)

Comments OffTags:···

Pub Owners Raise A Pint

February 14th, 2010 · Copyright

Publicans across the British Isles stand to recover as much as £20 million in their ongoing legal battle over the payment of copyright fees for playing music at their pubs. A High Court ruling yesterday found in the favor of pubs, restaurants, and hotels, and dismissed the appeal by Phonographic Performance Ltd, which had introduced new tariffs on the music in 2005, raising fees fourfold. The ruling saves the pubs at least £3 million per annum going forward, and opens the door to refunds of up to £10 million for overcharges going back to 2005.

Comments OffTags:··

Disney Gets Marvel, But Who Gets the Characters?

February 6th, 2010 · Copyright

When Disney announced that it was buying Marvel for $4 billion last fall, the hype failed to mention that Jack Kirby’s kids were seeking to recover ownership rights to some of the most popular titles in recent times — including such luminaries as X-Men, the Fantastic Four, Spider Man, the Avengers, and the Incredible Hulk. While the notices of termination served by clan Kirby would not take effect until 2014 at the earliest, whether the heirs of the acknowledged co-creator of these characters can reclaim ownership rights is potentially a $1 billion question.  Given the increasing popularity of the superhero genre at the box office and — on the heels of Avatar — the obvious interest in producing 3D tales of their heroic adventures, the battle for ownership is likely to be protracted. In response to the Kirby’s shot across the bows, Marvel last month filed suit in federal district court in Manhattan seeking a declaration that Kirby’s creation of the characters was simply work-for-hire, and that his heirs have no ownership interest nor right to any additional compensation.

If the story has a familiar ring to it, that’s because this bell has been rung before. Those of you who follow the always-entertaining rulings produced by Hollywood copyright skirmishes will recall that in 2008 the heirs of Jerry Siegal recovered a share of the copyright in Superman, which had been sold to Detective Comics for $130 in 1938. Doubtless the Kirby kids are seeking a bigger check than that.

To follow the saga of the Kirby’s claims in more detail, start with Ben Fritz’s article in the LA Times and follow the links.

Comments OffTags:·········

Who Dat Trademark, Commissioner?

February 5th, 2010 · Trademark

Just days before the  Super Bowl kicks off, the National Football League has done some strategic back-peddling from its claim of ownership rights in the  popular chant of New Orleans Saints fans — “Who Dat?” The NFL drew almost universal criticism from Saints fans and the public at large after sending out a series of demand letters to local business last month ordering them to cease-and-desist selling tee-shirts bearing the “Who Dat?” slogan, the tag line from the  chant ”Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints?” Compounding its error, the league even went so far as to claim ownership of the fleur-de-lis, the ancient symbol of the French monarchy that adorns Saints uniforms.

In response, Louisiana’s attorney general wrote the league defending the right of fans and vendors to “Who Dat,” the fleur-de-lis and the team colors. After taking a beating in the press over the last month, and being inundated with official letters of protest from not only local officials but also Senator David Vitter (R-La.)  —  who informed  the NFL that he was printing up his own “Who Dat say we can’t print WHO Dat” shirts — NFL officials today renounced their claim to exclusive rights to “Who Dat?” and the fleur-de-lis, claiming that the whole thing was a huge misunderstanding.

So, after all the fuss, who owns “Who Dat? The correct answer is:  Who knows?

Comments OffTags:····

“Men” Down in Case Down Under

February 4th, 2010 · Copyright

The 80’s Australian pop-rock band Men at Work, whose vegemite-themed hit “Down Under” vaulted them into superstardom — winning them a Grammy for Best New Artist, and earning them a place in rock history as the only Aussie band to have ever concurrently had a No. 1 album and single in the U.S. –  has been found liable for infringing the copyright of the 1935 children’s campfire tune “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree.”  An Australian court ruled today that the band had copied substantial portions of ‘Kookaburra,’ specifically finding that the flute riff in “Down Under” replicated a material section of the earlier work. The band was ordered to pay some 27 years of royalties earned by their hit song.

Attorneys for the company which owns the rights to ‘Kookaburra’ stated out of court that they may seek up to 60 percent of the royalties earned by “Down Under” since its release. Considering that the song has sold more than 20 million copies since its release, the anticipated damages could force the aging rockers into yet another round of reunion concerts.

Comments OffTags:···

Technorati Claim Token

February 3rd, 2010 · Technology

AJ3YFCER7DDH


This is not an actual post. This is only to verify our claim token with Technorati so you can find us there too!

Comments OffTags:

Relax, You Already Have a Copyright

February 2nd, 2010 · Copyright

Many artists operate under the mistaken belief that unless the copyright symbol © appears next to the title of their work, then their novels, screenplays, lyrics, poems, manuscripts and other assorted  jottings aren’t protected by the copyright laws.  Fortunately, this assumption — while historically accurate — no longer holds true today.  Under the copyright laws that were in effect before 1978, a work that was published without copyright notice automatically became part of the public domain. This rule was repealed, and copyright notice is not necessary for works first published after March 1, 1989. What you wrote last week is yours, and no one can use your work without permission (with some notable exceptions for sampling, fair comment, and parody). While different countries have different laws detailing what is necessary for a valid copyright, how long a copyright lasts, and who retains the copyright after an author’s death, in the United States the rule is relatively simple:  what you wrote yesterday is yours today, yours tomorrow, and yours for 70 years after your demise.

Comments OffTags:······

Sand Hill Is Just Another Road

January 28th, 2010 · Trademark

The Palo Alto wealth-management firm Sand Hill Advisors LLC has lost its trademark infringement suit against an identically-named Los Altos commercial real estate company.  Rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the name “Sand Hill” evoked an “entrepreneurial spirit” which made it protectable, U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled instead that “Sand Hill” was geographically descriptive, which means that it can’t be trademarked. The judge dismissed plaintiff’s reliance on a handful of misplaced calls and misdelivered packages over a 10-year period as insufficient to support its confusion argument, commenting that the “paucity of evidence of actual confusion” combined with a lack of overlap in the services offered by the two companies supported defendant’s position.  In the words of the court, plaintiff attempted to “paint with too broad a brush ” — and missed the mark entirely.

Comments OffTags:··

Baidu Beats Piracy Charges

January 27th, 2010 · Copyright, Popular

A Chinese court found no wrongdoing by Baidu in a copyright infringement case launched against the largest search engine in China some two years ago by Universal Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment Hong Kong and Warner Music Hong Kong. The Beijing court ruled that the search engine had not broken the law by linking downloads that infringe copyright.

The IFPI expressed disappointment with the ruling, which left them contemplating their next steps in the face of yet another adverse ruling against the music companies by Chinese courts. In the view of IFPI, the verdict did not comport with their belief that Baidu had created its music search businesses “on the basis of facilitating mass copyright infringement, to the detriment of artists, producers and all those involved in China’s legitimate music market.” Given that Baidu now has a music partnership with seven labels (including EMI) that allows it to legally stream music, this may be the end of their legal woes with the recording industry.

Comments OffTags:·····

McDonald’s sues teen over use of “McFest”

January 26th, 2010 · Popular, Trademark

A Chicago teenager suddenly finds herself embroiled in a trademark dispute with McDonald’s Corp. over her use of the name McFest for an annual charity concert featuring high school and college bands.  Although the concert, which raises money for the Special Olympics, has been promoted under the McFest name since 2007, and the teen’s surname is McClusky, apparently the corporate giant fears that use of the McFest mark will diminish the power of its own mark. Given that McDonald’s has trademarked as many words beginning with “Mc” as the USPTO has been willing to hand out (e.g., Mc$ave, McButton, McRule, McFree and just plain Mc), it’s really not surprising, but one has to wonder where it will stop. Just out of curiosity I wrote down all the last names starting with Mc that I could think of, and was still going strong after I’d reached 50. Can McDonald’s really prevent everyone with a surname starting with Mc from opening their own McBusinesses? For the full story go to http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2011307,CST-NWS-mcfest26.article#

Comments OffTags:···

The Busy Executive’s Guide to Self-Defense (Against Hackers)

January 26th, 2010 · Internet, Popular

In her new guide for corporate management, Enterprise Security for the Executive: Setting the Tone From The Top, Jennifer Bayuk, former head of information security for Bear Stearns, contends that assaults on corporate security over the Internet continue to put valuable corporate assets at risk, and offers guidance for measuring, managing and minimizing those risks. As long as people stand to make money by accessing your data, you can be sure that someone out there is tap-tap-tapping at your firewall, hoping that you’ve stopped paying attention momentarily. One possible solution? Follow the footsteps of the FBI and hire a former hacker to make your site impenetrable.

Comments OffTags:·····