Social Media Credential Fraud

If you are reading this blog post there is a good possibility you have heard of the following social media terms: Tweet, To Friend, Un-Friend, To Follow, To Un-Follow, etc...However, have you ever heard of "Social Media Credential Fraud"? Is "Social Media Credential Fraud" a mythical term or is it a new type of fraud that is being perpetuated by some social media users who are trying to be someone whom they are not? Popular. Seen as an expert. Or both.

I discussed this topic while being part of a panel at LegalTech New York 2011 that covered social media branding and ethical issues. During the session, I posed the following hypothetical: Is it unethical for a Twitter user who utilizes a Twitter account for commercial purposes to intentionally follow someone on Twitter, only to stop following that person once a follow back has been received for the specific purpose of inflating one's follower numbers? Is this practice just 1) Bad Manners; or 2) Mere Puffery; or 3) Misleading and/or deceptive under the FTC Advertising Guidelines and/or a Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (if the Twitter user is also a lawyer)?

For example, what if a Twitter user followed 100,000 people, and 50,000 of those people followed the Twitter user back based upon the initial follow. Then the Twitter user systematically un-followed 95,000 of those people so his following to follower number has a ratio of 1:10. After achieving a celebrity like Twitter following to follower ratio, the Twitter user then advertises that he is an expert in his profession and as part of his sales pitch points to his Twitter following to follower ratio or advertises he has a certain number of Twitter followers. Is this practice ethical or is it legal?

This scenario sounds like it could be something that happened in the movie Mean Girls. Unfortunately, it is a behavior that some Twitter users engage in. The FTC Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Advertising states, "The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices broadly covers advertising claims, marketing and promotional activities, and sales practices in general. The FTC's Advertising and Marketing Guidance states, "under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply." Since a Twitter account may be considered an advertising platform, the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures may apply to your Tweets.

In the legal profession, lawyers must follow their jurisdiction's Code of Professional Responsibility. For example, Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct State: "(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not use or disseminate or participate in the use or dissemination of any advertisement that: (1) contains statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading; or (2) violates a Rule." Therefore, a lawyer's Twitter account may be perceived as an advertisement even if it is only used for personal purposes. What if the Twitter account is utilized for both commercial and personal activities? Social Media has blurred the lines between what some people may see as personal and what others may interpret as your professional message. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that your social media activity may have both ethical and legal consequences.

The bottom line is that reputation building and expertise takes years to achieve and that short cuts in the long run will fail. In the 1987 hit movie, "Can't Buy Me Love" Ronald Miller, an unpopular kid in high school paid the most popular girl in high school Cindy Mancini $1,000 to pretend that she was his girlfriend for a month. Ronald's hypothesis was that if Cindy was his girlfriend he would become popular. Overnight, Ronald went from "totally geek" to "totally sheik". However, his new found popularity was short-lived because as soon as the rest of the school found out that he had to pay Cindy to pretend to be his girlfriend (analogous on Twitter to paying a service to obtain followers on your behalf or following tens of thousands of people and then un-following them once you receive a follow back) Ronald's brand was destroyed. Ronald learned in high school that there are no short cuts in reputation building.

The bottom line is acting like a "Social Media Ronald Miller" will not succeed in the long run. While utilizing social media one must understand there are ethical and legal ramifications of what you post and how you utilize each platform.

To learn more about social media legal, branding, and ethical issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

The DMCA's Safe Harbor May Only Provide Commercial Entities a One Business Day Grace Period to Remove Infringing Content

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not state how long an Internet Service Provider (ISP)/Online Service Provider (OSP) has to respond to a claim of copyright infringement. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, "[u]pon receipt of a compliant notification of claimed infringement, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity, if the service provider seeks to receive the benefits of the limitations of liability contained in § 512(c)".

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, defines expeditiously to mean "marked by or acting with prompt efficiency." According to Wikipedia's entry for the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, "[f]or a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable."

There is no controlling case law that provides black letter law regarding the DMCA's definition of expeditiously. However, it was noted in Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010) that when YouTube received from Viacom one mass take-down notice for 100,000 videos within one business day almost all of the infringing content was removed. Viacom's take-down notice was sent on February 2, 2007, which is more than three and half years ago. Since this mass take-down, advances in technology have made it easier to detect and remove infringing content.

Since YouTube, a commercial entity, had the resources to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day more than three and a half years ago, it is not onerous for commercial entities to abide by a one business day rule today. At first glance, it may sound onerous for a web site to be forced to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day. However, in a matter of hours a popular movie, book, or other original work may be downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. These downloads may cause serious irreparable financial harm to copyright holders.

According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders.

The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content.

To learn more about protecting and monetizing your online content you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.