At the root, that is what my definition of a web page is; it defines a single 'expression' out of an infinitely malleable web page. Something better is knocking around in my mind, maybe I can even write about it sometime soon...

'Expressions' are too malleable now-a-days. Today, when you view this page, you will see a unique page, because the advertisement for weblogs will be different for each of you. No two expressions will be the same. Something else is needed to put the rights we need on the Internet together into a conceptual framework. . . something that embraces the transientness of the new media, instead of trying to impose the old representations on the new medium.

The root 'unit' of copyright is an 'expression'. When you create an expression of something, you get the rights attached to it by copyright, like the right to distribute that expression, the right to make derivative works, etc.

DoubleClick Plan Falls Short: Privacy advocates prefer opt-in plans, where companies can't collect information unless the consumer has actively provided consent, over opt-out. For a company that promised really hard, honest to never collect data ever, so help them the BBB, only opt-in makes sense for them. Anything else is a lie.

"E-commerce is a burgeoning business, but there really aren't rules and regulations that stipulate how you'll do business," May said in an interview shortly after the House of Delegates vote. "Primarily the objective was to establish an even-handed treatment of buyer and seller so neither side has the advantage." Bull. If that was the primary objective of the bill, then maybe it might have actually protected the buyer in some significant way, rather then the seller, seller, seller at all costs as the bill is currently set up.

"By using this registration information for any purpose except verification of warranty, you agree to pay me $100 or 90% of the revenue you recieve from the selling of my information net, whichever is greater, to be paid before so selling my information. A late-payment fee of 25% will be compounded monthly for failure to pay, capping $25,000 or 10,000 times the net revenue recieved, whichever is greater." Think it would work?

A few days ago I used the phrase license bomb to describe putting a license on some copyrighted material that you must accept in order to use, almost identical to a software license. Does anyone know how far that could be taken? Could I put a license bomb on my resume? My web pages? My registration information? And what with UCITA passing (assuming it continues to do so), maybe we could make a truly absurd license and attempt to enforce it, claiming that UCITA protects this. This slashdot message has the idea, and I think it's genuinely worth trying; why wait for "the industry" to provide an acid test?

Do You Yahoo?: The suit alleges that the companies' use of cookies, or little text files written into a personal computer's hard drive to identify a computer user, violates Texas' anti-stalking law.

As one who commented on Jason Snell's piece a day or two ago, I probably have a moral obligation to point to his reply to Dave Winer. (I would still contend that if he had meant to say what he says in that reply, it should have been more clear, but goodness knows my writing isn't perfect either.)