BUTTERWORTHS BUYS FREE LEGAL FORMS SERVICE
Butterworths Tolley, the UK legal online publisher, has acquired Everyform, the internet site that has transformed the legal forms market by giving away free digital forms.

The purchase of Everyform will enable Butterworths to link free, up-to-date forms using the Hot Docs software to its free legal information portal, Law Direct. The combination of free forms, vital for much of the lawyer's bread and butter work, and daily reporting of changes in the law provides lawyers with a compelling reason to go to Butterworths web site for all their information requirements.

"Our goal is to constantly add value to our online legal information services and to encourage all lawyers to go online for their legal research" said Sarah Thomas, Executive Director at Butterworths Tolley. "The purchase of Everyform allows us to expand our existing free content to lawyers and to link it to our added value paid for services. We are delighted at successfully completing this deal."

Founded 18 months ago, Everyform now has 12,200 registered users, including 39 percent of UK legal firms. "Everyform has been a spectacular success and has reached the point where we needed to acquire legal content and raise capital to expand our services to lawyers far more quickly than we anticipated," said Russell Shepherd, the entrepreneur who set up the company. "We were approached by a number of major players in the publishing world but Butterworths Tolley's experience in online publishing and the quality of their content made them our preferred choice from the start."

THE NAPSTER DECISION - AN ALTERNATIVE POINT OF VIEW
The UK online music site iCrunch - whose founders include the well-known new media lawyer Liam McNeive - has posted the following commentary onto its web site at www1.icrunch.com

A bit of Background: On Monday 12th February, the US Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) issued a judgment which concluded that: Napster's knowing facilitation of peer-to-peer sharing of copyright music results in copyright infringement by Napster, and Napster cannot rely on a "fair use" defence; A preliminary injunction against Napster's participation in copyright infringement "is not only warranted, but required"; and the case should be sent back to the Californian court which originally heard the action against Napster, with the objective that the original injunction against Napster (granted in Summer 2000, but "stayed" pending this appeal) should be redrawn so as to prevent Napster from continuing to facilitate certain types of music sharing, as explained below.

So what is Napster to be prevented from doing? The court has said that Napster should be prevented from allowing the distribution of music where: Napster is notified that its system is carrying infringing files provided that the notice specifically identifies the infringed material (ie tracks); and Napster then fails to prevent viral distribution of those tracks through its service. Also, an obligation to proactively police its service for infringing activity to a certain degree is to be imposed on Napster.

It is important to note that the injunction to be granted against Napster is an interim one only; the case against Napster is yet to go to a full trial. Conversely, though, it is fair to say that Monday's judgment represents a reasonably comprehensive dismissal of Napster's arguments, which it may be difficult for them to counteract at a fully-argued trial.

What will be the short-term effect for Napster? Once the new injunction is put in place - which may be a matter of days or weeks - Napster is likely to become a significantly different type of service to the one that its 50 million users currently know. We think that it will become a place where two specific types of music are distributed: Unsigned material, where the act in question is seeking to gain popularity through Napster's massive peer-to-peer distribution channel; and Signed material, but only on a selective basis - so that, for example, an act which is on tour or which has a new release coming out may allow one or more specific tracks to be virally distributed through Napster, as a promotional tool.

The common link between the different tracks distributed through the Napster service will be that the relevant copyright holders - whether it be a label/iCrunch (in the case of a signed act) or the act itself (where it is unsigned) - have specifically consented to allowing the distribution.There are two other possibilities, namely (a) that Napster may seek to introduce its currently proposed subscription service even more speedily - the manner in which this, if established, will commercially operate is currently unknown, or (b) Napster may even close down its service - although this seems unlikely.

What does all this mean for iCrunch? Napster has undoubtedly had a double-edged effect upon us. On the one hand, Napster has introduced a very large number of people to the pleasures and advantages of downloading valuable music. On the other, as the court acknowledged, Napster's service has been offered at the expense of CD sales, and has had "adverse effects on the developing digital download market". The court's judgment is, therefore, a very good thing for music copyright owners and licensees. And particularly for iCrunch, as holder of the digital distribution (download and streaming) rights to a over 7000 tracks from over 50 labels. Once Napster users recognise that there is no free method of legitimately downloading iCrunch labels' music and look for an alternative supply channel, then we believe this will help stimulate a culture of understanding the monetary value of high-quality, well-encoded downloadable music - from which iCrunch will be a principal beneficiary.

So does iCrunch hate Napster? No. Back in early 1999, before the hyperinflation of Europe's Internet bubble, iCrunch (or Crunch, as it was then known) became the first website in Europe to offer legitimate downloads of signed material for paid download. Napster was unknown. We wanted to confront the coming opportunity/threat of online distribution directly, and turn it to the advantage of the labels which signed to iCrunch, for the benefit of the millions of people who have used iCrunch in the intervening two years (and, of course, usÉ). And even though Napster has represented a serious challenge to iCrunch's business, our attitude has always been that we should adapt to new technologies - whether it be MP3 or, in the case of Napster, peer-to-peer networks - rather than endeavouring to ignore them. We therefore expect to co-operate with Napster on a targeted basis, using Napster's peer-to-peer distribution channel for the dissemination of specific iCrunch tracks on a consensual promotional basis. And we will try, wherever possible, to take a similarly enlightened approach to any other (r)evolutionary technologies which come along in the months and years ahead.

EVERSHEDS IN US STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
The Texas-based eLaw.com service, which provides subscribing lawyers with access to a web-based collection of work products, such as memos, briefs, letters, agreements and other practice resources, drafted by leading domestic and international law firms, has just announced a "strategic alliance" with Eversheds in the UK

Eversheds partner Paul Smith said the deal with eLaw.com "is a unique opportunity for us to display our distinctive competencies to both current and prospective clients. We're excited to have the opportunity and exposure that eLaw.com provides us, our participation with eLaw.com will help us attract new U.S. based clients."

NOMINATIONS CLOSING FOR E-TECHNOLOGY AWARDS
The closing dates for nominations for Nabarro Nathanson e-Technology Awards is 28th February. The awards are intended to reward UK SME companies who are making the best use of new technology to gain a competitive edge and the winners will be announced in May. To request an entry form or for further information, contact Jessica Powell of Expertease on 020 7936 8400.

AOL TOLD UNLIMITED MEANS UNLIMITED
The French consumer association UFC-Que Choisir has taken AOL France to court over its unmetered web access package. Users were unlimited access to the internet in return for a flat monthly fee however when the AOL network became "saturated" with web traffic, AOL is alleged to have simply disconnected users who were staying online for too long. Other users complained they could not get online. The court rejected AOL's argument that the limitations on web access were a temporary measure and ordered the company to pay the consumer group EU 38,000.

NAPSTER OFFERS TO PAY $1 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
US online music swapping service Napster has announced details of a new scheme to start charging its users a regular monthly fee for downloading music from the web. The money will then be passed on to the music industry as compensation for lost revenues and royalty payments. The good news is Napster reckons this will generate $1 billion over the next five years, giving the major US music labels an extra $150 million a year in total.

But, while Napster now seems to be acknowledging that you cannot offer a legitimate service without having the appropriate licences from the music industry, there is much skepticism as to whether Napster has the technology to deliver an effective file transfer monitoring and control system - and even widerspread doubts as to the loyalty of Napster's users, who are widely expected to look elsewhere once they can no longer download tracks for free from Napster.

STRUCK OFF BUT STILL ONLINE
The Times newspaper has highlighted the problem of regulating the internet with a story this week about an English solicitor - Rodney Hylton-Potts - who was struck off in 1997 after being convicted of involvement in a commercial mortgage fraud but has now resurfaced as an online legal consultant.

According to the Hylton-Potts web site, his service is a "member of the Federal and New York Bar Associates" and it also, quite correctly, states that he "was a leading solicitor for over 25 years". Not surprisingly, the site is silent about is conviction and the fact that he has been struck off. The problem for the English Law Society is that while it is a criminal offence for anyone to pretend to be a solicitor, the Society has no jurisdiction over people who are not solicitors offering legal advice to the public.

DIGITAL VIEWERS UP - AD WATCHERS DOWN
The UK's Abbey National banking group says it is planning to cut back on its television advertising campaigns because the latest research into viewer watching patterns suggests viewers of iDTV (interactive digital television) watch 30 percent less advertising than viewers of the same programmes on conventional analogue TV. Apparently digital viewers spend the time accessing interactive services, such as email and online shopping services, during the ad breaks. Research also suggests that television advertising has had almost no impact on raising consumer awareness of specific web sites, despite the huge budgets internet start-ups have spent on TV ad and sponsorship campaigns.

FAMILY LAW REPORTS GO LIVE
UK-based Jordan Publishing has announced that its Family Law Reports series will be available online from 1st March at http://www.lawreportsonline.co.uk The service will also offer users the ability to run full text searches on every case reported on the service over the past 20 years. An annual subscription to Family Law Reports Online will cost £225 (+VAT) however subscribers to the paper version can take advantage of an introductory offer and users will also be able to buy individual reports via a secure online credit card transaction.

FAMILY LAW REPORTS GO LIVE
UK-based Jordan Publishing has announced that its Family Law Reports series will be available online from 1st March at www.lawreportsonline.co.uk The service will also offer users the ability to run full text searches on every case reported on the service over the past 20 years. An annual subscription to Family Law Reports Online will cost £225 (+VAT) however subscribers to the paper version can take advantage of an introductory offer and users will also be able to buy individual reports via a secure online credit card transaction.

TERRORISM ACT TO COVER CYBERCRIME
Although primarily intended to counter the activities of UK-based terrorist groups, the new Terrorism Act, which came into force earlier this week, will also criminalise the activities of 'cyberterrorists' who seek to disrupt power suppliers and essential services by hacking into their computer systems.

ONLINE SERVICE CHIEF SUSPENDED FOR OVERSTATING USERS
Steven Laitman, the chief executive of the UK interactive games and online chat service e-district.net, has been suspended from his post amid allegations that the company's revenues, registered users and page impressions had been "substantially overstated". The auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers are now investigating the AIM market-listed company's affairs.

NETWORK SOLUTIONS TO SELL DATABASE INFO
In a controversial move, that is likely to refuel the debate surrounding online privacy and data protection, Network Solutions - which at one time had a monopoly on top level internet domain name registrations - has announced plans to sell marketing organisations access to its database.

According to ads Network Solutions has been running in the United States "On your marks, get set, go! Available for the first time ever. Approximately six million unique customers, sliced and diced for you to target prospects, learn about a specific audience or retain customers... Take this information and run with it."

The data available will include the names and addresses of all individuals and businesses that have registered web addresses, along with whether their sites are active or dormant and whether they are capable of handling e-commerce transactions.

Under its original contract with the US Government, Network Solutions was always required to provide public access to this data - and a lot of marketing organisations are known to have collected some of this data via manual methods - however under the new move, the data will be collated and prepackaged to make it easier for third-parties to re-use it.

ONLINE BRAND ABUSE - A NEW LEGAL PROBLEM FOR THE DIGITAL AGE
Among the many emerging issues within the e-business world is the concept on online brand abuse.

The more obvious examples include web traffic diversion, where sites use competitors names, trademarks and logos in the URL and text to attract traffic away from the original site; unauthorised use of a company's name or product in meta tags - we have even heard of solicitors practices using a rival firm's name in their meta tags - and software, music and video Piracy. Also, it is now also possible for consumers with a complaint against a company to build their own defamatory - or just plain abusive - 'sucks' web sites for millions to see.

Given the speed at which the internet works, it does not take long before these activities can start to cause commercial harm. Not surprisingly, companies are now beginning to employ strategies to combat these problems.

For example, Coke has its own team on 'brand cops' which constantly surf the internet looking out for cases of brand abuse or defamatory material. Other companies are having 'surfing days', where employees are taken away from their usual tasks to browse the internet looking for illegal sites using the company's intellectual property without permission.

And, we are also seeing growing interest in the idea of outsourcing branding and intelligence needs to third party organisations, such as Cyveillance, the pioneer in e-business intelligence. The hotel group Bass Hotels & Resorts (BHR) has, for example, been using Cyveillance both to identify sites using traffic diversion tactics, to improperly lure customers away from the BHR sites, and to monitor the use of the BHR brand by legitimate leisure industry sites, such as online travel agencies and guides. In the latter case, BHR found a number of sites that lacked online reservation capabilities or else carried incomplete information, so as to undermine its marketing and promotional efforts.

For the record, the ten brands most commonly 'hijacked' and misused by pornographers are: Disney, Barbie, CNN, Honda, Mercedes, Levi's, ESPN, NBA, Nintendo and Chevy.

The top ten most common brand crimes online are:
* Unauthorised use of logos and images
* Diverting users away from a web site by hiding keywords in the meta tagging
* Unauthorised use of a company's name or product in metatags
* Software, music and video piracy
* Unauthorised framing (or deep linking) so that one site's content appears on another site
* Use of a company's name on a competitor's site
* Use of logos or images in a pornographic context
* Domain name abuse and "sucks: parody sites
* Negative newsgroup postings

LEGAL TECHNOLOGY NEWS.COM - FROM THE PUBLISHERS OF LEGAL TECHNOLOGY INSIDER. NEXT ISSUE 01.03.2001